HomeMy WebLinkAboutHistoric Preservation Commission Meeting Signed Minutes - September 21, 2020MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
OF SOUTH BEND AND ST. JOSEPH COUNTY
September 215`, 2020
4"' Floor Council Chambers
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:
John Charles Bryant, 707 Harrison Avenue, South Bend, IN 46616
Jeri DeCola, 1310 Longfellow Drive, South Bend, IN 46616
Kurt W Garner, 12954 6"' Road, Plymouth, IN 46563
Larry Herschberger, 10905 West US Highway 20, Shipshewana, IN 46565
Ben Modlin, 60649 Hickory Road, South Bend, IN 46614
Alma C. Powell, 52095 Carriage Hills Drive, South Bend, IN 46635
R. Eileen Thomas, 2608 Roys Avenue, Elkhart, IN 46517
Todd Zeiger, 61550 SR 931 Highway, South Bend, IN 46614
II. ROLL CALL
Members Present: Michele Gelfman, President; Sarah Andrews, Secretary; Eric Stalheim;
Patrick Deegan; Joan Downs-Krostenko, Architectural Historian; David Wyncott; John
Tiffany (joined the proceedings at 5:32pm).
Members Not in Attendance: Elizabeth Hertel, Vice President; Mary Brazinsky,
Treasurer.
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
1. 748 Portage Avenue
Historic District
Representation:
#2020-0904 #9574-05 Chapin Park Local
Larry Herschberger, 10905 West US Highway 20,
Shipshewana, IN 46565
STAFF REPORT
CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR A
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
Date: September 8, 2020
Application Number: 2020-0904
Property Location: 748 Portage Avenue
Architectural Style/Date/Architect or Builder: Gable Front/Classical Revival/1900
Property Owner: LC Rentals LLC
Landmark or District Designation: Chapin Park Local Historic District, #9574-05
Rating: Contributing
DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURE/ SITE: Two story frame house with brick foundation on an elevated lot, divided into
multiple units. The roof is gable front with returns and is covered with asphalt shingles. Siding is asbestos. Windows are 1/1
double hung with metal storms and metal awnings. Front door is metal panel with fanlight, off centered to one side with transom
above and sidelights on both sides with concrete stoop. Detached building in rear is vinyl sided with vinyl windows.
ALTERATIONS. Non -original asbestos siding, non -original metal storm windows, non -original metal window awnings.
APPLICATION ITEMS: "siding and trim, storm windows, storm doors"
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT: The applicant has requested approval to:
a. Retroactively install Jeldwen Vinyl windows on the rear structure,
b. Remove the existing fiber siding on the front structure and existing vinyl siding on the rear structure;
C. Install new Hearttech Double 5" vinyl siding;
d. Trim around existing windows and doors with 4.5" wide aluminum;
e. Install 35 metal storm windows (22 on front structure, 13 on rear structure);
f Install new metal storm doors;
g. Remove metal awnings over the front windows and door
h. Rehabilitate the awnings over the side entry doors.
Property was "Red Tagged" by the Building Department for replacing windows on the rear structure on November 1, 2019.
Owner came in and met with Administrator Elicia Feasel on November 1, 2019 to discuss the Certificate of Appropriateness
application process. The Building Department sent two violation letters (dated 12/19/2019 and 1/17/2020). The owner
scheduled a meeting with Specialist Toering to discuss the Certificate of Appropriateness process on February 6", 2020 at
2:00pm. The Building Department sent a violation letter on August 19, 2020. Property owner visited the HPC office on August
281h to apply for the above work. Additional information was requested to complete the application, and this was provided to
the office on September 81h, 2020.
STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES: CHAPIN PARK
II. EXISTING STRUCTURES
A. BUILDING MATERIALS
Original exterior building materials in the district include brick, stucco, clapboard, wood shingles, and brick or stone masonry.
In some instances, vinyl, composite and aluminum siding have been applied over the original material.
Required
Original exterior building materials shall be retained when possible. Deterioration of wood materials shall be prevented through
repair, cleaning and painting. The existing architectural detail around windows, porches, doors and eaves shall be retained or
replaced by replicas of the same design when deteriorated beyond repair.
Masonry, including brick and stucco structures, shall be maintained, and properly cleaned only when necessary to halt
deterioration or to remove stains and shall be done in a method acceptable for the preservation of the surface: i.e. low-pressure
water and soft natural bristle brushes. Brick or masonry 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.
When repairing stucco, stucco mixture shall be used. A professional shall make a study of the old stucco, to determine the exact
mixture and underlayment used in the original work. Some repair methods are not compatible with the original techniques and
may cause early disintegration of the repair work and the original work.
Ample ventilation must be afforded the structure when siding is installed, in order to prevent increased deterioration of the
structure from moisture and insects.
Recommended
Whenever possible, the original building materials should be restored. When maintaining or repairing original siding is not
feasible, aluminum, vinyl or composite siding may be used. 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, cornices gables,
eaves and other architectural features.
Property owners should contact the Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph County prior to initiating
any restoration or rehabilitation effort. The Commission is an invaluable source of information about all facets of rehabilitation
and restoration — materials, methods, contractors and the like.
Prohibited
Wood siding shall not be resurfaced with new materials that 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.
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. Usage of Portland cement can cause deterioration as a result of the differing coefficient of expansion and
porosity of the historic masonry unit and the mortar. This most often results in serious damage to adjacent brick.
Unpainted masonry surfaces shall not be painted unless they had been painted originally. Paint shall not be removed from
masonry surfaces by any means that damage the surface.
Not Recommended
Waterproof or water repellant 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. Mortar joints, which do not need repointing, should not be repointed. Wood
siding should not be power washed.
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.
D. ENTRANCES, PORCHES AND STEPS
Most houses in the district have either an open or enclosed porch across the front. Most porches have either hip or gabled roofs
or are covered by the main roof of the house.
Required
When deteriorated beyond repair, existing or original porches, stoops, patios and steps, including handrails, balusters, columns,
brackets, tiles and roof decorations, shall be retained or replaced by replicas of the same design or by a design more in keeping
with the historic period of the structure.
Porches and additions reflecting later architectural styles, and which are important to the building's historical integrity shall be
retained.
Recommended
When enclosing porches for heat conservation or for other reasons, it should be done in a manner that does not alter the
architectural or historical character of the building.
Not Recommended
Original porch details should not be replaced with materials representing a different period or style from the original.
SITE VISIT REPORT: N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION;
Staff recommends approval for:
1. The removal of the existing fiber siding to allow for the evaluation of the original siding beneath,
2. The installation of 35 metal storm windows (22 on front structure, 13 on rear structure),
3. The installation of new storm doors,
4. The removal of the metal awnings over the front windows and doors,
5. The rehabilitation of the awnings over the side entry doors.
Staff recommends denial of the retroactive installation of Jeldwen vinyl windows on the rear structure and would like to see
windows of the original size and configuration installed.
Staff withholds making a recommendation on:
1. the installation of the 5" vinyl siding until the original siding's condition can be determined; were it to be deteriorated,
staff would recommend the approval of the vinyl siding.
2. the installation of the 4.5" aluminum trim around the windows and doors; contingent upon the condition of the wood
siding.
Prepared by
Adam Toering, Historic Preservation Specialist
Reviewed by
Elicia Feasel, Historic Preservation Administrator
PETITIONER COMMENTS:
Commissioner Wyncott asked why smaller windows were used on the rear of the structure.
Mr. Herschberger stated someone had previously installed windows over the previous windows; the
smaller windows were installed so that trim work would not be behind the shower.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko confirmed the images of the smaller windows and asked again why the
windows were made smaller.
Mr. Herschberger stated that a previous owner had installed showers behind the window, and that having
trim behind the window didn't make any sense.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko asked if he was aware that this was a Historic District.
Mr. Herschberger stated that he was not aware that this was a historic district until he was notified that
he had done work without approval.
Commissioner Gelfman clarified that this project is complicated and that it should be considered as
individual components, and that the installation of the vinyl siding would more than likely be
contingent upon the condition of the original wood siding beneath.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION, SECTION 1— REMOVAL OF THE EXISTING SIDING:
Commissioner Gelfman started the discussion on the removal of the existing siding.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko asked for clarification on the siding materials.
Specialist Toering clarified that the front structure has a fiber shingle siding, and the rear structure has a
vinyl siding.
Commissioner Gelfinan stated that underneath the siding is wood siding.
Mr. Herschberger stated that there are multiple types of siding underneath the structures — there is wood,
but there are other materials.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko asked for clarification on the structure, as to which structure had green
siding.
Specialist Toering indicated on the included Sanborn maps that there are two structures, that the front
structure has cement board siding and wood siding underneath, and that the rear structure is
quite old and originally had two residential units included inside of it and now has vinyl siding
over an additional siding material.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko clarified that this COA is for both structures, and that the `blue' one
(rear structure) is where the openings were made smaller.
Specialist Toering confirmed Commissioner Downs-Krostenko's statement.
Commissioner Gelfman stated that staff s recommendation for the installation of the 5" vinyl siding was
to hold on that until the original siding's condition could be determined; were it to be determined
to be deteriorated, staff would recommend approval of the proposed project.
Commissioner Andrews asked for clarification about the removal of the siding, and whether they would
be requesting the vinyl siding to be removed from the rear structure, as well.
Commissioner Gelfinan stated that yes, based upon staff s assessment of the various siding on the rear
structure.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko confirmed the different types of siding on the house.
Commissioner Gelfman clarified that the discussion was currently about the siding, and not the other
aspects of the application.
Commissioners discussed the details of the application, versus the Staff recommendation.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko clarified that the application was for the removal of the siding on both
structures, stating that usually the siding underneath is in good condition and that she would be
optimistic that the siding underneath would be in good condition. Commissioner Downs-
Krostenko asked about the age of the rear structure.
Specialist Toering clarified that the rear structure is present in the earliest Sanborn maps we have for the
area.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko stated that review of the front unveil was favorable, but the rear may
be confusing because it didn't clarify the differences between the two structures.
Commissioner Gelfman stated that the motion could clarify any confusion, and that the motion could
remand to staff the appraisal of the siding underneath and potential approval of new siding.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko stated she would not want to make a motion for an automatic approval
for vinyl siding, where the wood siding deteriorated, as she would like to see other materials. If
there is an opportunity to improve the district, the Commission should advocate for that. She
would be comfortable with unveiling of the structures and for staff to assess them, but not to
automatically approve vinyl.
Commissioner Gelfman asked staff regarding other projects where other siding was approved.
Specialist Toering mentioned another project on Portage where the Commission reviewed the
installation of vinyl siding.
Administrator Feasel clarified that the unveil was approved, but the siding had two different siding
reveals, and that the windows were not replaced, but vinyl was approved.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko stated that she believed the neighborhood was not happy about the
approval of that project.
Administrator Feasel stated that the staff recommendation is based upon the standards and guidelines
and proceeded to read the applicable portion of the standards and guidelines to the Commission.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko clarified that you can use other materials, and that should prefer to see
other materials instead.
Commissioner Gelfman stated that the vinyl is allowed by the Standards and Guidelines and is
acceptable.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko stated it was also acceptable to use metal, composite, or wood siding.
Commissioner Gelfman asked Commissioner Downs-Krostenko what she would prefer to happen.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko stated that once the unveil has happened, you have a better
understanding of the condition, as well as how the applicant might handle restoring the original
trim, that composite board looks better beside original trim, as opposed to metal or vinyl,
because of the way they seem-up to the trim; and that it may be cheaper to do the wood repair.
Commissioner Deegan asked for clarification on the Standards and Guidelines where it prohibits the
installation of material that is not appropriate or was not available, and that he had received
phone calls about installing stone veneer on other homes within the district, and had steered
them away from those projects.
Specialist Toering stated that it was his opinion that this line of the Standards and Guidelines was
referring to specific materials, and not vinyl or aluminum generically.
Commissioner Deegan stated that the `such as' leaves it up to interpretation.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko stated that she was present for the writing of the Standards and
Guidelines and that the allowance of the aluminum and vinyl was because it was understood that
there were situations with structures not seen from the street like garages where they might get
damaged and the applicant would not be forced to reside that structure with wood.
Commissioner Gelfinan stated that the motion should be structured in a way that would allow for the
outside siding material to be removed from both structures, and for the original material
underneath to be assessed, and then the motion would need to clarify whether staff or the
Commission should decide.
Commissioner Wyncott stated that he felt the staff should decide upon the condition and decide
accordingly.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko stated that the non -original siding should have preserved the original
siding, and that we won't know it's condition until its unveiled, and we won't know how
complicated the trim is until it is unveiled, but it probably doesn't have expensive trim repair.
Commissioner Stalheim stated that the Sanborn map indicates that there used to be a porch across the
front.
Commissioner Gelfinan stated she didn't have an issue with remanding the project to staff.
Commissioner Stalheim concurred.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION, SECTION 1: REMOVAL OF THE EXISTING SIDING:
N/A
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko made a motion to approve the removal of the fiber board siding
on the front house, and the removal of the post -original siding on the back structure, and at that
point, staff visit the site to begin a discussion of how to proceed with the restoration of the exterior
of both buildings for COA #2020-0904. Seconded by Commissioner Andrews.
Five in favor, one opposed.
Vote: 5 —1. Motion to approve section 1, removal of the siding on the front and rear structures to
assess the original wood underneath on COA #2020-0904 passes.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION SECTION 2: INSTALLATION OF STORM WINDOWS:
Commissioner Gelfinan began discussion on the storm windows and the rear windows.
Mr. Herschberger stated that the storms would make both buildings look uniform.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko asked for clarification on the existing windows on the front building,
as well as the new replacement windows, and asked for earlier photos of the windows on the rear
structure.
Specialist Toering stated that there were no additional photos, and that the windows on the front
structure appeared to be original. The rear structure has replacement windows.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko asked about the rear windows.
Specialist Toering stated that staff would like the rear windows to be replaced with a different
replacement window.
Commissioner Stalheim stated that new windows may not need storm windows if new windows are
installed.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko asked why the application doesn't reference replacing the rear
windows.
Specialist Toering clarified that the original reason for the application is the retroactive replacement of
the rear windows, and that this is indicated in the correspondence.
Commissioner Gelfman stated that the project could be broken up into two sections, the front storm
windows, and the rear replacement windows.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko asked staff what they would recommend for the openings.
Specialist Toering stated that staff does not have a recommended window replacement option, but that
they would no[ recouunend llie iMslalled windows, as they are not believed to be the same size
and configuration as the previous windows.
Commissioner Gelfinan asked for the front building to be resolved first.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION SECTION 2: INSTALLATION OF STORM WINDOWS:
N/A
Commissioner Wyncott made a motion for the installation of 22 metal storm windows on the front
structure on COA #2020-0904. Seconded by Commissioner Andrews.
Five in favor, one opposed.
Vote: 5 —1. Motion to approve the installation of 22 metal storm windows on the front structure
on COA #2020-0904 passes.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION SECTION 3: INSTALLATION OF THE 'WINDOWS ON THE
REAR STRUCTURE:
Commissioner Gelfman began discussion of the rear structure.
Commissioner Deegan asked why the windows are different in the indicated photographs.
Mr. Herschberger stated that the photographs were taken over a year ago when work was being
executed, and explained the dimensions of the windows, and that the configuration was what
was in place before.
Commissioner Deegan asked why the size was different.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko stated that it was because of the shower.
Commissioner Wyncott asked if this rear structure was adjacent to the alley.
Mr. Herschberger stated that it was.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION SECTION 3: INSTALLATION OF THE WINDOWS ON THE REAR
STRUCTURE:
N/A
Commissioner Andrews made a motion to deny the retroactive installation of the installed
windows on the rear structure on COA #2020-0904.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko asked if she could amend the motion with Commissioner Andrews'
motion, that the windows should be denied, but that the selection of the replacement windows should be
remanded to staff. Commissioner Andrews agreed to the amendment.
Commissioner Andrews made a motion to deny the retroactive installation of the installed
windows on the rear structure, and that the selection of the replacement windows should be
remanded to staff. Seconded by Commissioner Stalheim.
Five in favor, one opposed.
Vote: 5 —1. Motion to deny the retroactive installation of the installed windows on the rear
structure, and that the selection of the replacement windows should be remanded to staff on COA
#2020-0904 passes.
Commissioner Gelfman clarified that the rear windows need to be removed and that the selection of the
replacement windows should be reviewed by staff before they are installed. Commissioner
Gelfman strongly suggested looking into wood windows.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko clarified that the more appropriate window size may be discovered
after the removal of the siding.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION SECTION 4: INSTALLATION OF REPLACEMENT STORM
DOORS:
Commissioner Gelfman began discussion on the replacement of the storm doors
Mr. Herschberger stated that he intended to install 4 exterior storm doors and that the original doors
would not change.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko stated that she would prefer to see a wooden door in lieu of a metal
door, as it is paintable.
Commissioner Stalheim highlighted that two storm doors were selected, and that he would push for the
door with more glass to be installed on the front facade of the front house, while installing the
other storm door would be acceptable on the secondary elevations.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION, SECTION 4: INSTALLATION OF REPLACEMENT STORM DOORS:
N/A
Commissioner Stalheim made a motion to approve the installation of the metal storm doors, with
the Portage -facing elevation with a full -light storm door, whereas the other elevations can be of the
other proposed configuration for COA #2020-0904. Seconded by Commissioner Andrews.
Five in favor, one opposed.
Vote: 5 —1. Motion to approve the installation of metal storm doors with the Portage -facing
elevation with a full -light storm door, whereas the other elevations can be of the other proposed
configuration on COA #2020-0904 passes.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION SECTION 5: AWNINGS:
Mr. Herschberger stated he would attempt to save them, but they are in bad shape.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko stated that it is hard to say whether the structure originally had
awnings, but it is safe to say that they didn't look like this.
Commissioner Stalheim asked if it includes the rehabilitation of the awnings over the side entry.
Commissioner Gelfman stated that was appropriate.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko expressed concerns regarding replacement of the side awnings.
Specialist Toering clarified that the side awnings were to be rehabilitated, not replaced.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION, SECTION 5: AWNINGS:
N/A
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko made a motion to approve removal of the awnings on the front
house and the rehabilitation of the awnings over the side entry doors for COA #2020-0904.
Seconded by Commissioner Wyncott.
Six in favor, none opposed.
Vote: 6 — 0. Motion to approve to approve removal of the awnings on the front house and the
rehabilitation of the awnings over the side entry doors on COA #2020-0904 passes.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION, SECTION 6: WINDOW TRIM:
Commissioner Ponder asked if they should resolve the window trim.
Commissioner Gelfman stated that she did not believe the trim could be resolved until the siding is
removed.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko stated that the Commission could withhold making a recommendation
until the siding is removed.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION, SECTION 6: WINDOW TRIM:
N/A
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko made a motion to withhold recommendation on the
rehabilitation of the trim on both structures until after the incongruous siding has been removed
for COA #2020-0904. Seconded by Commissioner Andrews.
Six in favor, none opposed.
Vote: 6 — 0. Motion to withhold recommendation on the rehabilitation of the trim on both
structures until after the incongruous siding has been removed on COA #2020-0904 passes.
Legal Counsel Kennedy asked for clarification as to whether this portion of the project needed to come
back before the Commission.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko made a motion that once the siding is removed and an
assessment can be made of the configuration of the original decorative trims — particularly around
the windows — that staff be guided to evaluate and decide how to proceed for COA #2020-0904.
Seconded by Commissioner Andrews.
Six in favor, one opposed.
Vote: 6 — 0. Motion that once the siding is removed and an assessment can be made of the
configuration of the original decorative trims — particularly around the windows — that staff be
guided to evaluate and decide how to proceed on COA #2020-0904 passes.
2. 1133 East Wayne Street #2020-0909 #7796-87 East Wayne
Street Local Historic District
Representation: Jeri DeCola, 1310 Longfellow Avenue, South Bend, IN 46616
STAFF REPORT
CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR A
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
Date: September 8, 2020
Application Number: 2020-0909
Property Location: 1 133 East Wayne Street
Architectural Style/Date/Architect or Builder: Colonial Revival/ 193 8/Toepp House
Property Owner: Jim Nowicki
Landmark or District Designation: East Wayne Street Local Historic District, #7796-87
Rating: Contributing
DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURE/ SITE: Two story house with rectangular plan. Roof is side gable with returns and
asbestos shingles (although survey card lists asphalt). Windows are primarily original wood 8/8 double hung at first floor, 6/6 at
second floor, with omamental louvered shutters. There is a central arched entry with fluted pilasters. Facade is painted brick.
ALTERATIONS: COA #2019-0603A allowed for the installation of Classic Products Oxford metal shingle roof over the
existing asbestos roof. RME 2011-0921A removed one dead/dying Green Ash in tree lawn per Permit #197 requiring
replacement tree.
APPLICATION ITEMS: "Replace windows"
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT: The applicant has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness positing multiple
different proposals related to the operation of windows:
i. Option 1), Install Vinyl replacement windows.
i. Install twenty-five (25) Joyce Manufacturing brand double hung vinyl replacement windows,
j. Option 2), Install FiberFrame windows,
i. Install twenty-five (25) "8000 Series Fiberframe ComfortLine double hung style fiberglass
replacement windows.
k. Option 3), Install Lifestyle Series Pella Wood Replacement Windows
i. Install twenty-five (25) Lifestyle Series Pella double hung style wood replacement windows,
1. Option 4), Restore the original windows
On September 4", 2020, Specialist Toering spoke to property owner Jim Nowicki on the phone regarding the particulars of this
project. Staff explained that the Historic Preservation Commission and Staff will always advocate for the preservation of the
original material. Mr. Nowicki expressed concern that his storm windows needed to be removed and replaced seasonally, and
his personal reasons for not wanting to get on ladder and do this. Staff strongly advocated for Mr. Nowicki to confer this
position to the Historic Preservation Commission.
Staff have not conducted a site visit but believe the windows to be in serviceable and restorable condition. Staff would advocate
for the original windows to be restored.
Staff would, in lieu of outright replacement of the entire window unit, strongly advocate for the removal and replacement of the
storm windows with new aluminum storm windows.
STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES: EAST WAYNE STREET
II. EXISTING STRUCTURES
C. WINDOWS AND DOORS
Window and door frames are of wood or steel (some casements) or in the case of brick structures, stone sills and brick lintels.
Where metal or vinyl siding has been applied, window trim has been covered. Storm windows are of wood and aluminum.
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 stony 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 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 used in place. New window and
door openings which would alter the scale and proportion of the building shall not be introduced. Inappropriate new windows
and door features such as aluminum insulating glass combinations that require removal of the original windows and doors sha
not be installed.
Not Recommended
Awnings, hoods, and fake shutters made of metal, vinyl, or fiberglass should not be used if they would detract from the existing
character or appearance of the building
SITE VISIT REPORT: N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission approve the removal of the existing storrn windows
and install new storm windows. Staff recommends that the original windows should be restored.
Prepared by
Adam Toering, Historic Preservation Specialist
Reviewed by
Elicia Feasel, Historic Preservation Administrator
PETITIONER COMMENTS:
Ms. DeCola apologized that Mr. Nowicki (the property owner) was traveling for business and was
unable to attend. She disclosed that she is the owner of Baranay's Windows and Doors and that
Mr. Nowicki was her parent's neighbor and a longtime family friend.
Ms. DeCola explained that Mr. Nowicki fell and broke his neck three years ago, he has full function and
is able to move, but has physical limitations to getting on a ladder and switching out the existing
wooden storms. Mr. Nowicki is the second owner of the house and he purchased it from a 95 -
year -old woman who never opened the windows in at least twenty years.
Ms. DeCola expressed thanks that Staff had recommended approval of an aluminum storm window but
stated that she felt that aluminum storm windows are that much different than replacement
windows but would ask that the existing windows be replaced with something else entirely.
Commissioner Gelfman asked if the windows were restorable.
Ms. DeCola stated that the windows are original windows, with ropes and weights, that some of the
ropes are broken, and that some of the wood is deteriorated. That they had a restoration
contractor come out and state that the project was too big for them, and they may be able to get
to it next year, that H.G. Christman had been contacted, and another gentleman out of Plymouth.
Ms. DeCola stated that Mr. Nowicki was approved for a metal roof, which she believed was more out of
character than replacement windows, and that the Wayne Street District wasn't a district until
the 1990s, and that a number of the houses that are similar to Mr. Nowicki's house have
replacement windows.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko stated that the Commission was very familiar with the process for
restoring windows, and that there are projects do `slip by' without being reviewed, and that some
window replacement occurred before the establishment of the district, but that the Commission
is charged with protecting the historic character and workmanship of the district.
Commissioner Ponder asked about the cost of the storm windows.
Ms. DeCola stated that the storm windows would cost approximately $300-$350 a window, and that no
one could give definite prices for restoration, but it would range from $300-$850 a window, with
the expectation that it would be higher than that. Mr. Nowicki is looking into a pretty significant
investment.
Commissioner Deegan stated that for restoration and the storms it would be approximately $28,000.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko stated that she was restoring the windows in one of her properties and
it is costing approximately $400 a window and $150 for a storm window.
Commissioner Gelfrnan asked if it would be appropriate for the homeowner to contact [Commissioner
Downs-Krostenko]'s contractor.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko stated that she could not speak to her contractor's capacity but wanted
to clarify that it is not technologically difficult to restore windows. Commissioner Downs-
Krostenko stated her opinion that metal storm windows are visually different than what is
historically appropriate, as well as described her struggles to have new manufacturer -made
windows fabricated to her specifications.
Commissioner Deegan asked the applicant if they believed that replacement windows would match the
existing windows.
Ms. DeCola responded `yes.'
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko asked if it would have divided light between the glass.
Ms. DeCola responded `yes.'
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko stated that she did not believe this would replicate the existing
windows.
Ms. DeCola stated that Pella windows offer alternatives for the window design that could replicate the
window details.
Commissioner Stalheim stated that he would be in favor of restoration with new storm windows.
Commissioner Wyncott stated that he would be in favor of restoration with new storm windows, and that
the storms could be modified so that you could replace the screens with glass from the inside.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko stated that she can change her storms from the inside, and that her
storms have an elbow bracket that allows her to insert the screen without needing to get on a
ladder.
Commissioner DeCola asked how windows that can be tilted are historically accurate.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko clarified that this was the way some storm windows were operated.
Commissioner Stalheim clarified that they are not permanently tilted out, but only when you want them
that way.
Commissioner Wyncott stated that there is a time requirement to create functioning wood storm
windows and that he is understanding of this concern.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko asked if they should break the project into two components, the
restoration of the windows, and the installation of the storm windows.
Commissioner Gelfman expressed desire to have the entirety of the house being uniform.
Ms. DeCola stated that she believed Mr. Nowicki would not want to have multiple types of windows on
the exterior of the house, he would want it uniform.
Commissioner Gelfinan reiterated that changing storms is dangerous.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko agreed.
Commissioner Stalheim stated that he supported the installation of the metal storms, and that it could be
undone later.
Commissioner Deegan stated that he didn't see the difference, but he may not be looking at it as closely;
he recognized the importance of being able to open a window; and that he appreciated the
thermal efficiency of having a storm window. The Standards and Guidelines state that windows
should be rehabilitated, but access and use are a priority.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
N/A
PUBLIC DISCUSSION:
N/A
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko made a motion to recommend the rehabilitation and restoration
of the existing windows for COA #2020-0909. Seconded by Commissioner Stalheim.
Six in favor, none opposed.
Vote: 6 — 0. Motion to approve the rehabilitation of the windows for COA #2020-0909 passes.
Commissioner Stalheim made a motion to approve the installation of new metal storm windows
throughout the entire property on COA #2020-0909. Seconded by Commissioner Andrews.
Five in favor, one opposed.
Vote: 5 —1. Motion to approve installation of metal storm windows for COA #2020-0909 passes.
3. 305 West North Shore Drive #2020-0910A #6512-78 West North
Shore Drive Local IIistoric District
Representation: Jeff Dierbeck, 61396 Miami Road, South Bend, IN 46614
STAFF REPORT
CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR A
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
Date: September 8, 2020
Application Number: 2020-0910A
Property Location: 305 West North Shore Drive
Architectural Style/Date/Architect or Builder: Colonial Revival/1922/Dalton House
Property Owner: Paul Cholis
Landmark or District Designation: West North Shore Drive Local Historic District, #6512-78
Rating: Outstanding
DESCRI PTION OF STRUCTURE) SITE: Two story brick house with brick foundation on a slightly elevated lot. One story
wings on both sides feature cast iron balustrades. The roof is side gable and is covered in slate with three dormers punctuating.
Dentilated cornice above entryway and roof. Two side chimneys. Windows are mainly 6/1 double hung with shutters; two 4/1
double hung are centered above entrance; dormer windows are round arch 8/1 double hung; windows in wings are divided light
casement or fixed. Front door is centered with sidelights and transom. Porch features columns and pilasters with Doric capitals.
A garage in rear is also of brick material with slate roof. Original copper downspouts and gutters.
ALTERATIONS: COA #2017-0329 allowed for pointing on main house and carriage house. COA #2012-0403 allowed for
the removal of one dead/dying/hollow red maple tree per City Forester Brent Thompson. COA #2011-0909 allowed for
pointing of sunroom east exterior wall, as well as repair and replacement of the damaged pavers, wing walls, and front and side
steps. COA #2003-1023 allowed for the reconstruction of the existing driveway and brick paver curbing.
APPLICATION ITEMS: "Rentove dead, diseased, and dying blue spruce at north east ally of property and n/e corner. Est. 19
dead and dying trees. "
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT: The contractor has requested approval to:
m. Trim large deciduous tree at northeast comer;
n. Remove 21 blue spruce trees, including stumps;
o. Remove 2 dogwood trees, including stumps
The trees are clustered in the northwest corner of the property, which is the side fronting Lafayette Boulevard and rear on an
alley. The blue spruce trees are large and dense but many of the needles are shed. City Forester, Brent Thompson, has noted that
these evergreens have a lot of dieback and suggested that they are diseased with Rhizosphaera needle cast that can spread in
overcrowded tree plantings like this one. The disease can get expensive and is hard to get poor condition trees to come back to a
healthier condition. Removing these trees will open the lawn. There are no new trees proposed to be planted at this time.
STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES: WEST NORTH SHORE DRIVE
I. THE ENVIRONMENT
C. LAWNS
The Current or historic landscaping character of lawns should be preserved. Paving and blacktopping of existing lawns so as to
transform them essentially into parking lots or spaces rather than residential lawns must be prohibited. Front yard areas, trees,
and lawns must remain open. Fencing in front yards is prohibited. A fence on the Michigan Street side of lots 12 and 13 may
be permitted if done in a distinctive way and is compatible with the character of the structures on these lots, with considerations
being made for the high density and speed of the traffic on Michigan Street.
Trees contribute greatly to the beauty and charm and indeed the historic character of the North Shore Drive
neighborhood. Street widening or other public developments calling for widespread destruction of large, healthy trees
must be prohibited. Replacement of trees must be compatible in variety with those presently growing. The vacant lots must
be kept as landscaped or appropriated recreational, or other similar residential development. This is not intended to prohibit the
sale of such lots, nor new construction on these lots.
SITE VISIT REPORT: On August 13, 2020, Specialist Toering and Inspector Van Overberghe conducted a site visit to the
property from the right-of-way to document/photograph the condition of the trees per the contractors description. Pictures from
that site visit are attached to this staff report. Staff are not arborists and cannot speak to the health of the trees.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval.
Prepared by
Adam Toering, Historic Preservation Specialist
Reviewed by
Elicia Feasel, Historic Preservation Administrator
PETITIONER COMMENTS:
Mr. Dierbeck agreed with the staff recommendation and that he had been working on the project for
some time and the trees have deteriorated rapidly within the last five years. Removing the trees
will be better for the neighborhood.
Commissioner Andrews asked if there was a replanting plan.
Commissioner Gelfinan explained that it is a corner lot and it is adjacent to the alley.
Commissioner Stalheim asked for clarification of the trees that will be staying.
Mr. Dierbeck stated that the deciduous trees will remain, but there will be trimming.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko asked if the City Forester had an assessment.
Mr. Dierbeck stated that he believed the City Forester had made a recommendation.
Specialist Toering clarified that the City Forrester's opinion is included in the packet.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko asked if the West North Shore Standards and Guidelines demands the
replacement of removed trees with similar trees, and she knows that it is in other districts, and
that she was aware that there were issues with replanting diseased trees immediately because of
concerns that the disease may remain.
Mr. Dierbeck stated that the groundcover (ivy) would be able to grow, and that new plantings would
require the removal of the ivy. Removing these trees will open up the view of the house.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko stated that the removal of the trees will change the setting of the home,
and that the loss of evergreens will be a loss. She would like to see the motion include some sort
of requirement to replant trees.
Commissioner Deegan asked how the old trees are.
Mr. Dierbeck stated that the applicant's father planted the trees approximately 50 years ago.
Commissioner Gelfinan asked if the house is for sale.
Mr. Dierbeck responded affirmatively.
Commissioner Gelfinan stated that the new owner may have the responsibility of landscaping the
property.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Stalheim stated that he agreed that replanting would be ideal, but if the property is going
to be sold, there's little to be done to mandate the future owner to do anything.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko asked Legal Counsel Kennedy whether the Commission would be able
to ask the City Forester to make a formal recommendation as to how, where, when, and what to
plant a couple of trees for the complete decimation of a four -season green landscape, and
whether that requirement to plant could be mandated to the future owner.
Legal Counsel asked Commissioner Downs-Krostenko what would be done if the future owner did not
do what was requested.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko asked Legal Counsel Kennedy what could be done.
Legal Counsel Kennedy stated that there is nothing in the Historic Preservation Ordinance that allows
you to do anything; that the current owner is asking you to allow them to do a certain project;
they will sell the property; that the Commission cannot legally ask the homeowner to write a
requirement into the sales document; the future owner will not be obligated to do it.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko stated that the Commission could make a request, not an obligation,
and that the Commission should advocate for the preservation of trees.
Legal Counsel Kennedy clarified that disease or liability concerns may supersede preservation.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko again reiterated it could be a request.
Commissioner Wyncott stated that the future buyer will probably want to make landscaping changes to
make the property their own and cautioned against trying to overregulate the replacement.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko stated that the "ordinance does say" that mature trees will be
preserved.
Commissioner Wyncott stated that he could probably argue that diseased trees are not mature trees.
Commissioner Deegan stated that he didn't see in the Standards and Guidelines where it's a one-for-one
ratio; the loss of the trees will not mean the lot is completely barren.
Commissioner Wyncott stated that, while some may like deciduous trees, the new owner may like
something else.
Administrator Feasel stated that the Standards and Guidelines did not mandate that trees will be
replaced, but instead that the standards require that front yards remain open; that this was a small
grove of trees that was put in 50 years ago, but that it is not necessarily original to the layout of
the neighborhood, and that removing them will be more in keeping with the Standards and
Guidelines; the Standards do say that trees contribute to the beauty and charm and the historic
character, that healthy trees should be preserved; there will be large trees still on the property.
The Commission is not here to design people's projects. The Commission is here to review and
decide on the applications presented. Staff recommends approval and does not recommend any
new trees. A landscape plan would be appreciated by staff in the future, but the Standards and
Guidelines do not require replacement.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko stated that the Chapin Park Standards and Guidelines mandate
replacement.
Specialist Toering stated that the West North Shore Standards and Guidelines were the first Standards
and Guidelines adopted by the Historic Preservation Commission and they are unique.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION:
N/A
Commissioner Andrews made a motion to approve COA #2020-0910A as proposed. Seconded by
Commissioner Stalheim.
Six in favor, none opposed.
Vote: 6 — 0. Motion to approve COA #2020-0910A passes.
B. NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATION
i. Lowell Heights — Olivet African Methodist Episcopal Church public comment and
review
Administrator Feasel explained that this is the first of two meetings to hear this proposed National
Register Nomination. At the second meeting the Commission will draft a letter of support for
the National Register Nomination to submit to the State.
Mr. Todd Zeiger (61550 SR 931 Highway, South Bend, IN 46614) stated that Indiana Landmarks,
through their African American Landmarks Committee did help fund the nomination that Kurt
Garner is writing, but that Mr. Garner has donated his time and knowledge. Mr. Zeiger stated
that Indiana Landmarks believes this to be a very important historic site in South Bend, an
amazing church and an amazing congregation that has taken care of this building for decades.
Mr. Zeiger stressed that he wanted to encourage the Commission's positive recommendation for
this nomination, and that this is a wonderful structure to add to the National Register.
Mr. Kurt Garner of KWGarner Consulting and Design (12954 6" Road, Plymouth Indiana, 46563)
offered to answer any technical questions that the Commission may have. Mr. Garner clarified
that the state had determined that the structure was eligible under the `architecture' category, and
that having discussed the application with Mr. Zeiger and Administrator Feasel, all parties
agreed that, as this structure is historically the home of the first African American congregation
in South Bend, that it should also be considered significant under the `Culture and Ethnic
Heritage' category. The nomination is being sent to the state that way, so Mr. Garner implored
the Commission for a strong letter of support to make that case.
Ms. Alma Powell (52095 Carriage Hills Drive, South Bend, IN 46635) introduced herself as the Senior
Steward at the Olivet AME Church, and she recognized Pastor Eileen Thomas, John Charles
Bryant, and Sharon Manly who were present in the chamber. Ms. Powell thanked Mr. Zeiger
and Mr. Garner because it has been an exciting process to be considered for this honor. Ms.
Powell stated that the church was incorporated in 1871, just five years after the incorporation of
the City of South Bend. Ms. Powell stated that in 1870 there were only about 100 African
Americans in South Bend, and about 25% of them decided to get together and form a church.
Ms. Powell referenced a book by Reverend Gordon entitled "The Negro in South Bend, a Social
Study" published in 2009, where it stated that "Olivet was called the source of health and social
uplift and the location and the handling of social problems." Ms. Powell stated that everyone
was very excited to be doing research and sharing their findings, and that a Zoom meeting was
held with former members from all over the United States, and she presented some images from
that research that best showed the importance of the congregation to this community. Ms.
Powell recognized the IUSB Civil Rights Heritage Center's African American Landmark Tour,
and that the church is on that tour and the congregation is very proud of that. Ms. Powell
showed a picture of Dewitt Hunter with then Mayor Roger Parent. Ms. Powell then showed a
picture of their involvement with Hering House. Ms. Powell then showed a picture of Billy
"Stix" Nix meeting with Jackie Robinson when he was here for a function. Ms. Powell also
highlighted Attorney Charles Wills, who was involved in fighting against the Ku Klux Klan
when they came into South Bend. Mr. Wills helped AME Zion incorporate some laws at the
time to fight their efforts to keep the church from being built. Reverend Perry — who was the
Olivet AME Church pastor for many years — was the first African American President of the
Rotary Club here in South Bend, as well as a successful businessman, he had his own pharmacy
out on Western Avenue. South Bend Community School Corporation's first African American
teacher was a member of Olivet AME Church, Peggy Eskridge. Olivet AME Church has long
partnered with the University of Notre Dame. The church hosted a large memorial for Father
Hesburgh when he passed away, whenever an African American is brought in to receive an
honorary doctorate or degree, the church hosts a reception for them. The church continues to be
vibrant, victorious, and vital. Ms. Powell again reiterated how excited the congregation is to be
a part of this project.
Commissioner Gelfman thanked Ms. Powell and said how exciting this is, and how pleased and honored
the Commission is to be reviewing this nomination.
Ms. Powell thanked the Commission.
Reverend Eileen Thomas (2608 Roys Avenue, Elkhart, IN 46517) thanked the Commission for hearing
this nomination.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION:
Mr. John Charles Bryant (707 Harrison Avenue, South Bend, IN 46616) stated that he represented the
Powell family. Five of the nine original founders of the congregation were of the Powell family.
The church was founded on 310 W. Monroe Street, which was near downtown, and very close to
the Lafayette School which was by the intersection of Lafayette and Monroe Street. The Church
was originally wooden, and the second church was built in 1916. It was then moved in the
1970s to the Lowell Heights Methodist Church. The family is happy that preservationists are
interested in adding this to the registry. Research has been done at Wilberforce College and
other institutions with the AME church, but unfortunately the records just don't show. Mr.
Bryant thanked the Commission.
Administrator Feasel explained again that this will be on the agenda again next month to make the
recommendation to the State and ultimately the National Park Service.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko asked Mr. Garner for clarification as to what he meant in his
introduction about the recommendation.
Mr. Garner explained that ultimately the State decides how the recommendation will be submitted to the
National Park Service; that the previous eligibility had been done solely on the grounds of
architecture, and that HPC staff, Indiana Landmarks, and Mr. Garner agree that the ethnic
heritage importance is significant, and that the Commission's weighted support for this
nomination may help with its review. Given the circumstances and current time, we think it is
important to recognize in an official document the significance of the African American
community here in South Bend in perpetuity.
Mr. Zeiger stated that Indiana Landmarks feels very strongly that this nomination needs to be included
under A) Cultural and C) Architectural criterion, and that he can't say it under any stronger
terms. It's typical for church structures to be reviewed under the architectural heading; the
Olivet AME church has cared for this structure almost as long as the original builder — we're
right at the tipping point — but Mr. Zeiger thinks the significance of Olivet AME and the history
of its building and its preservation outweighs the architectural, and that they need equal if not
higher billing in this nomination. Because this Commission is a Certified Local Government,
you can review these nominations before they go to the State and put your opinion on them. It is
fairly rare for a Commission to push for a recommendation one way or the other, but since the
initial review by the State was only under one heading, it would be beneficial for the
Commission to state that "in our town, in our community — yes, it's important for Lowell, good
for them, but — the history of Olivet is as paramount to this building as Lowell was to the
builder, and so we strongly recommend that it be considered under cultural significance as well,
even though that might have to bend the rules a little bit on how things are normally done." Mr.
Zeiger stated that the Commission weighing in on this will help.
C. LOCAL LANDMARK
i. Bill 36-20: A Proposed Ordinance to Repeal the Designation of a Local Historic
Landmark for Property Located at 60649 Hickory Road, South Bend, IN
Legal Counsel Kennedy explained the circumstances of the Local Landmark at 60649 Hickory Road,
South Bend IN, which was reviewed at the end of the 2019 for the replacement exterior siding.
The owners of the property appealed the decision of the Commission and solicited the Common
Council to delist the property from the Landmark register. The attorney of the property owner
wanted this appeal to be heard in person, but the Council has not met in person since March of
this year. Legal Counsel Kennedy spoke with their attorney and then approached the
Commission in July to see whether delisting would be well received. The Commission
unanimously passed a motion to support the delisting of the landmark at that time. The
ordinance was drafted and submitted to the Common Council, Bill 36-20, in August, where it
had first reading. It was sent to the Commission for a Public Hearing — this is that Public
Hearing. The property is still only half sided, Mr. Modlin is present in the chamber.
Legal Counsel Kennedy read Common Council Bill 36-20 into the record:
"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
Ordinance #127-78, for property located at 60649 Hickory Road, Councilmanic District 5, South
Bend, IN 46614.
The Purpose of this Ordinance is to repeal the designation Local Historic Landmark for property
that was so designated while it was located in St. Joseph County, Ordinance 127-78, but was
subsequently annexed into the City of South Bend in 1989.
Now, therefore, be it ordained by the Common Council of the City of South Bend, Indiana, as
follows:
Section 1. The designation of Local Historic Landmark pursuant to St. Joseph Ordinance # 127-
78 for the real property and appurtenances located at 60649 Hickory Road South Bend Indiana
46614 is hereby repealed pursuant to section 21-21.04(b)(4)(D) of South Bend Municipal Code.
Section II. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect after its passage by the Common
Council, approval by the Mayor, and publication as required by law."
Legal Counsel Kennedy stated that the bill still needs second and third reading, which should happen at
the September 28`x' meeting, at which time she will notify them whether it has received a
favorable recommendation. She will be present at those meetings.
Legal Counsel Kennedy stated that in the July meeting, Commission Andrews made a motion and it was
seconded by Commissioner Brazinsky stating that the Commission was not opposed to delisting
of this landmark, and it was passed by a vote of 8 — 0.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION:
Mr. Ben Modlin (60649 Hickory Road, South Bend, IN 46614) stated that he was in favor of repealing
this ordinance.
Commissioner Wyncott made a motion to send Bill 36-20 to the Common Council with a favorable
recommendation. Seconded by Commissioner Andrews.
Six in favor, none opposed.
Vote: 6 — 0. Motion to send Bill 36-20 to the Common Council with a favorable recommendation
passes.
IV. PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR
N/A
V. REGULAR BUSINESS
A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Specialist Toering clarified that edits were made by Secretary Andrews to both sets of
minutes.
i. July 20, 2020
Commissioner Andrews made a motion to adopt the July 20, 2020 minutes.
Seconded by Commissioner Stalheim.
Six in favor, none opposed.
Vote: 6 — 0. Motion to accept the July 20, 2020 minutes passes.
ii. August 17, 2020
Commissioner Andrews made a motion to adopt the August 17, 2020
minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Stalheim.
Six in favor, none opposed.
Vote: 6 — 0. Motion to accept the August 17, 2020 minutes passes.
B. STAFF REPORTS
i. Administrative Approvals
C. COMMITTEE REPORTS
i. Disposition of Historic Preservation Assets
1. N/A
ii. Standards Update
1. Todd Zeiger from Indiana Landmarks presented the Model Guidelines
to the Commission.
Mr. Zeiger stated that Indiana Landmarks has been working with several Commissions throughout the
state to remodel the template for the guidelines that they use. Mr. Zeiger acknowledged
Commissioner Eric Stalheim for his work, as well as the time of Administrator Feasel and
Specialist Toering for their review of the material. Mr. Zeiger stated that they wanted to
separate the education from the guidelines — applicants want to go to where they need to go and
read what they can or can't do. A lot of the guidelines have a lot of education, which is
important, but it can gum up the process. Mr. Zeiger said they would organize the first section
by project type, while the second section would have more information and background. Mr.
Zeiger stated that this would be digital -friendly, living on the web. It could be turned into a
webpage, at the least a searchable PDF. Mr. Zeiger stated they separated -out the residential and
commercial guidelines. Mr. Zeiger stated the language is simplified for ease of use by removing
the historic preservation jargon. The language is simple. It should be easier to generate the staff
reports by grabbing the appropriate text. Mr. Zeiger stressed that expanding administrative
approvals (or staff approvals) to accelerate the review process. The guidelines are structured to
show applicants what will be readily approved by staff. Mr. Zeiger said that the additional
information helps answer some of the questions about the architecture style of a house, or how to
hire a contractor. Mr. Zeiger stated that the Commission would need to decide how they wanted
the Standards and Guidelines to reflect the nuances of its community.
Administrator Feasel asked Mr. Zeiger what he saw as the next steps.
Mr. Zeiger said that he would envision a smaller Committee should meet from the Commission to
discuss the Standards and Guidelines, that you should consider outreach, that adoption will need
to come in time after review.
Administrator Feasel stated that the Standards and Maintenance Committee (chaired by Commissioner
Downs-Krostenko), would be the likely candidate for leading this. Administrator Feasel asked
how final this draft is.
Mr. Zeiger stated that this draft is stable, but that changes are always welcome. Mr. Zeiger referenced
that "Cultural Landscapes" are not something that many districts have, but that it may be
distributed and implemented because it's a good idea.
COMMISSIONER WYNCOTT LEFT THE PROCEEDINGS AT 7:26 PM
Mr. Garner stressed that this is a massive undertaking, and complimented Indiana Landmarks for
undertaking this.
Mr. Garner explained how it would be possible to use these Standards and Guidelines for the nine
historic districts that have subtle nuances. Mr. Garner showed how appendices would be created
for each district, with special considerations for that district, and presented a simulated version
for Chapin Park. He spoke of how the page will include a map, links to the ordinance, as well as
showed the unique guidelines that are in place in the Chapin Park Local Historic District.
Mr. Garner discussed his appraisal of how the existing standards and guidelines were written, in that
they tend to divide neighborhood elements into two categories: public infrastructure and private
work or sites. As an example, some neighborhoods have brick streets, some do not. This public
/ private separation will be used in the new standards and guidelines.
Mr. Garner discussed "Cultural Landscapes" and how the standards and guidelines are derived from the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and the supporting "Preservation Briefs".
Mr. Garner focused on Preservation Brief #36 "Cultural Landscapes" and Preservation Brief #48
regarding Cemeteries. The Commission has Cemeteries under its purview, so it is pertinent.
Mr. Garner stressed how he felt it boiled down to two things, `spatial relationships' and then
`gravestones' for resetting and cleaning.
Mr. Garner stated that he felt that the main body of the Standards and Guidelines will cover most any
projects, and that these specific elements will be covered by the appendices. He stressed that at
the back, these individual landmarks should be listed in the standards and guidelines.
Commissioner Stalheim asked if National Register listings will be included, as well.
Commissioner Andrews agreed, and referenced the WPA wall discussion in a previous meeting.
Commissioner Gelfman stated she would think it would be a good idea.
Mr. Zeiger stated that his only concern is that there is a misconception of owners of properties on the
National Register of Historic Places is that they think they need to get approval for projects, and
they do not. He stressed that the Commission should be careful of confusing the public.
Administrator Feasel stressed that there could be a section detailing definitions.
Mr. Garner stated he had been at a meeting recently where there was considerable confusion regarding
National Register restrictions just last month.
Administrator Feasel expressed that the committee should meet soon, and that staff was following the
example provided by colleagues in the Planning Team for public engagement in the age of
COVID.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko noted two tasks, the meeting of the subcommittee, and then the
engagement process, and asked to schedule the meeting for the subcommittee.
Specialist Toering stated that the meeting could be scheduled via Microsoft Teams.
Legal Counsel Kennedy stated that the meeting could be remote, or hybrid, or in person.
Administrator Feasel stated that the model guidelines could be distributed to the entire Commission, and
then feedback could be retrieved and sent to Mr. Garner.
Commissioner Gelfman stated that she felt that Commissioner Stalheim should be included on the
meeting.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko stated that the following should happen: first, that all Commissioners
should be reminded to review the documents and send any comments to Administrator Feasel;
second, to set a date for a hybrid meetings; third, to give that Mr. Garner; fourth to begin to
distribute it to the public, which means that the calendar needs to be looked at.
Administrator Feasel stressed that Staff expects to send mailers to everyone as well as to publish it in the
paper, as well as to contact the Council members, as well as to present to the Common Council.
Commissioner Stalheim asked that the mailer would have a list of all the dates.
Administrator Feasel stated that the Planning Team sent multiple mailers.
Legal Counsel Kennedy stated that it could be on the website, as well.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko stated that she believed the planning of the calendar should be in the
hands of staff, as it should be quicker.
Administrator Feasel stated that the Commission may be engaged to connect with stakeholders.
Mr. Garner stated that it was always envisioned to have a big public event, but COVID has changed that
plan.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko agreed, in a pre-COVID moment this would have been an important
civic moment.
Administrator Feasel stated that NNN has hosted similar events.
Specialist Toering stated that Venues, Parks & Arts has offered to help with engagement and hosting
events.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko stated that multiple venues would be a good idea fui public
engagement.
Administrator Feasel stated that the Commission has the final decision on the Standards and Guidelines,
that the standards do not need to be reviewed and adopted by the Common Council. Public
engagement will be critical to ensure that people adopt them in place. Staff have been advised to
be cautious of election time.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko stressed that it is important to focus on the Standards and Guidelines
being made more user friendly and being distilled to a more readily used format.
Mr. Garner stated he believed they would be easier to use as they are straightforward.
Specialist Toering stated he looked forward to roleplaying examples for the public, because showing
how it is easier is important.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko proposed three meetings in January, with a meeting in February, so
that it is adopted in March.
Commissioner Stalheim asked how many meetings were to be held.
Mr. Garner said that originally there were to be five or six meetings, and that meetings will be held, but
figuring out the logistics of the meeting will be a bit more complicated.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko said that it is important that the public can respond electronically and
wondered whether the guidelines will be electronically available.
Administrator Feasel stated that they will be hosted online, but work will need to be done to explain that.
Commissioner Stalheim asked for a meeting to be scheduled.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko asked who would be in attendance, and if we could have it on Monday,
October 5"' via Microsoft Teams.
COMMISSIONER GELFMAN LEFT THE PROCEEDINGS AT 8:10PM.
VI. OLD BUSINESS
VII. NEW BUSINESS
VIII. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS
A. City Cemetery Signage
Commissioner Andrews asked about the signage happening at City Cemetery.
Specialist Toering explained that he had helped to record video of the history of City Cemetery and it
should be available online.
B. Navarre Cabin
Administrator Feasel explained that the Common Council upheld the decision of the Commission.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko asked for clarification on one of the statements regarding the handling
of the removal of features from Leeper Park.
Legal Counsel Kennedy clarified that the Standards and Guidelines allowed for the removal of the Duck
Pond for specific reasons.
Commissioner Stalheim stated that the HPC decision had not been arbitrary and capricious.
COMMISSIONER GELFMAN RETURNED TO THE PROCEEDINGS AT 8:12PM.
IV. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Deegan made a motion to adjourn. Seconded by Commissioner Stalheim.
Five in favor, none opposed.
Vote: 5 — 0. Meeting adjourned at 8:18 pm.
Attest:
Sarah Andrews, ecretary Date