HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 1988historic preservation
of south bend and st. joseph county
ROOM 1123 COUNTY CITY BUILDING
south bend, indiana 46601 (219) 284-9798
AGENDA OF THE REGULAR MONTHLY
MEETING OF THE HISTORIC
PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Third Floor Conference Room County/City Buillding
7:80 p.m. - Regular Monthly Mto.
November 14, 1988
I. Call to Order
II. Roll Call
III. Public Hearing
A. Certificates of Appropriateness - (Reviews)
B. Historic Landmarks
1) 5105 Ironwood Rd. - Resolution
IV. REGULAR BUSINESS
A.
Approval of
Minutes
- October
10, 1988
B.
Treasurer's
Report -
October,
1988
C. Correspondence
D. Committee Reports
1. Certificates of Appropriateness - (Reports)
1) 14912 Brick Rd. - LL
2) 19109 Johnson Rd. - LL - Southland
2. Budget & Finance
S. Legal
4. Historic Districts
5. Historic Landmarks
6. Public Relations & Community Education
a) C of A Procedures Brochure
7. Director's Report
V. Old Business
VI. New Business
VII. Hearing of Visitors
VIII. Announcements & Miscellaneous Matters
I X. ADJOURNMENT
historic preservation commission
of south bend and st. joseph county
ROOM 1123 COUNTY CITY BUILDING
south bend, indiana 46601 (219) 284-9798
MEMORANDUM
TO: Commission Members
FROM: Lynette Jentoft-Nilsen,
DATE: November 1, 1988
SUBJECT: 14912 Brick Rd. - District No. 1 Schoolhouse
Dear Commission Members:
Second Reading and the Public Hearing on our petition to delay the demolition
of the District No. 1 Schoolhouse on Brick Road will be on November 9, 1988
at 7 p.m. On October 27, 1988, the Land Use Committee voted to favorably
recommend our resolution at the November County Council meeting.
I am enclosing a copy of a letter received from Mr. Ward's attorney
regarding his position. Essentially he is arguing that the building is too
substantially damaged to repair and that it endangers the public health and
welfare. He further suggests that he would sell J of the property with the
remaining structure to the Ad -Hoc Committee and keep the J with the new garage.
Since this meeting will occur before the next HPC meeting on November 14,
it is important that you let me know if you can attend.
Lynette
MEETING REPORT
Central High School
Attendees: Roger Hulsey, Troyer Group
Lynette Jentoft-Nilsen, Director-HPC
Brian Poland, Administrative Assn't.-HPC
Janeanne Petrass, HPC member
An informal meeting was held on November 1, 1988 at the request of Roger
Hulsey.
1) A schematic drawing of the new west entrance was presented to
determine if the design approach was appropriate. In general, the
entrance will reuse the stone arch from the Vocational Building, a
window section, and the pilaster capitals. Brick from both the
Vocational Building and Boilerhouse will also be used. The symetrical
design will include panels interpreting the two removed buildings and
will be connected to the High School Building by a structural glass
enclosure.
2) A second topic was the windows. The architect contends that the
existing windows need to be replaced. Local suppliers have been contacted,
but there appears to be some difficulty in finding a company to replicate
the sashes. Pella Windows has been contacted but is unable to match the
6' to 7' height dimension of the upper sashes. They can only manufacture
a 5' sash. The HPC staff, in responding to the question, deemed that
changing the sash sizes would be inappropriate. The Pella product is an
aluminum exterior material attached to wood interior in accordance to the
school corporation's desire for a "maintenance free" product.
The staff presented brochures from various window companies for the
architect to investigate and also requested that the architect provide
a window schedule describing the condition of a random sampling of
the windows.
Wilfred J. Mayette
Attorney at Law
543 Lincoln Wzy West, P.O. Box 454, Misluizaika, Indiana 46544 • Telephozie 219-259-6388
OctOf'e4 28, 1988
04. Donaid 7. 7ozo
Bu.i,eding Comm.ih,3.ione4
St. ao.6eph Bu.iid.ing Dept.
Room 732
County City Complex
227 V. ae��eazon B.evd.
South Bend, IN 46601
Re: Oa4d S Sonh, Inc.
14912 Baick Road
Dea4 174. ' f ozo :
7h.i,� ie.t.tc4 w.iii con/.i_4m that .in compliance with yo.u/z Qe.t.te4
4equez.t o/ Scp.temPe4 27, 1988, Pi4. lda4d of Oa4d � Sona, Inc.
.5ecu4ed .the 4e&4enced p4ope4-ty Fy f4ac-ing up .the 4ema.in.ing
wa.P.t,S within .the time epec-ill ed .
It .ia 84, Oa4d'z paezent Bo,.ition that .the pugiic heaith,
,3ale.ty and we.P/a4c 1.5 .in ae/z.iou-s jeapoady 4y the con.t.inued
ex.i,3.tence o f .th.iz gu-iAl ing in .i.t,5 p4ezen.t condition, and
/u4.the4, that it .i3 an a t t4ac.t.ive nu-iaance i ike'2y to invite
juev.in.i c .t4ezpazae4,6, and .thu,3 pozez an ext zeme.Qy ze4.iouz
4.izk to .the.i4 hea P.t h and even the i4 i ive,5 .
fu4.the4, .i.t .i,5 h.i.6 opinion that .the p4ope4.ty .i.-5 zo
za-L3.tan.t.itziXy and seAioa, -iy de&.i-C.i.ta.ted ass a 4e,3uit of .the
4ecen.t /.iac, that it .should �c to.taUy demoiihhcd and
4emoved /4om .the Re has had some d,i,� cu.6z ion w-i.th
P14. S.Pa.te4 who appa4enUy 4ep4e,6enth a G4ange4 BLL/3inebhman'z
,3,soc-ia.t.ion, and P14. SPa.te4 4epae,5ented .to him that .the co.s.f
o/ 4ehal.i.P.i.ta.t.ion of the z.t4uc.tu4e would Pe .in .the vac.in.i.ty
of $136,000.00. Such an would 'e .to-taiiy
.ineonz i-5.ten with .the 4e, .iden.t.iai dweUingh .in .the
ne.ighloahood which ave4age in the flange o/ the gow
$40, 000.00, and would 4e exoat i.tan.t, unaea.5onagie and
econom.icaiig non-lea,5 i ie.
Acco4d.ing-Qy, we would 4eque,6t an o4de4 that .the gu.iid-ing Fe
demo-Qi,6hed and .the iz4em-ize,5 ciea4ed.
RQte2nat ive�y, Na. Valzd would ag/zee .to zeii .the .io.t on which
.the zt2uc.tu2e .6i.tz .to the 92ange2 Buzinez.6manfz 4-6zocia.t.ion
/oa $15, 000. DU and he would aEta.in .the aema-in.ing one hael o/
.the n2opcaty .involved, on which h it,6 .the ga zage. .
R cony of .th.i,6 icite2 .i,� Pcing lo2wa2ded .to .the fli.6toiz-ic
P,ze4e2vat ion Comm.i.6,�.ion &A .the.i2 conl3 ide2a.t.ion-Ukew-i,6e.
Ve zy .t2 .ey you ,
1J -illl _ a. Playetic
l 181gjw
istoricpreservation commission
of south bend and st. joseph county
ROOM 1123 COUNTY CITY BUILDING
south bend, indiana 46601 (219) 284-9798
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: HPC Members
FROM: Brian Poland
DATE: C of A Procedures Brochure
SUBJECT: November 7, 1988
Enclosed is the final draft for the brochure discussed at the last meeting.
Please make any last minute comments before we go into production.
applicant to obtain any
required permits.
All approved Certificates of
Appropriateness will be reported
by the Staff to the HistoricIL
Preservation Commission at the �-
next appropriate meeting.
7. Certificates of Appropriateness
may be denied if the project is
inappropriate or if it violates
the established Historic District
or Landmark Standards. The
applicant will be informed of
Filing
specific reasons for denial by
letter (with a copy forwarded to
the Building Department) explain-
ing the action and suggestions
for changes. The applicant may
for
resubmit application with the
a
suggested changes to the Staff
for review at the next HPC
meeting. After all HPC proce-
dures are exhausted, the applicant
does have the right to appeal to
Certificate
the appropriate legislative
council which will make a final
determination on the appeal.
z
+�
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, please
o
c0
o f
contact:
°
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
of South Bend & St. Joseph County
z
`'
>'
__'
App�op�iateness
1123 County -City Building
CD
(�
L
U
0
`c
South Bend, IN 46601
�
a
219-284-9798
x
w
14
L
c
o
w
z
W
a
O
�4
W
H
v
U
w
October 1988
C7
N
7
61
h-1
x
iJ
z
—
.
The Historic Preservation
H
�,
r
3
W
Commission of South Bend
�
w
°O
N
o
and St. Joseph County
BLP : of HPC-B4
x
0
C4
N
M
CERTIFIC OF APPROPRIATENESS
PROCEDURES
The Certificate of Appropriateness
procedures is applicable to local
Historic Landmarks and for all
properties located within a local
historic district in South Bend
and unincorporated St. Joseph
County as designated by the
appropriate legislative council.
Any major exterior changes involv-
ing: architectural treatment, site
development requirements and
provisions concerning construction,
reconstruction, alteration,
demolition, or removal of any
building, structure, or part
thereof, shall require a Certificate
of Appropriateness.
The procedure to obtain one is as
follows:
1. For a project that includes
changes to the exterior of a
designated property or the
surrounding environment, the
owner (applicant) must file a
Certificate of Appropriateness
(C of A) .
a. For projects not requiring
a building permit, the
applicant shall apply directly
to the Historic Preservation
Commission.
b. For those projects requiring
a building permit, the
applicant may choose to
consult with the Building
Department regarding any
applicable zoning regulations
or building codes. Then, the
applicant shall apply directly
to the Histe Preservation
Commission. Note: A building
permit will not be issued
until a Certificate of
Appropriateness has been
approved by the Historic
Preservation Commission.
2. A three dollar ($3.00) processing
fee is required at the time of
the application. A member of the
Historic Preservation Commission
Staff shall inspect the site and
review the project. Proper
documentation must be submitted
to the Historic Preservation
Commission for review. This
documentation includes: sample
materials, product literature,
scale drawings, photographs, or
other materials specifically
requested.
4.
a. If the project is a routine
maintenance matter or complies
with the established standards
and guidelines, Staff may
approve the Certificate of 5.
Appropriateness.
b. If the project is not in
compliance or needs a Variance,
the application shall be
reviewed by the full Historic
Preservation Commission or the
Certificate of Appropriateness
Committee; if applicable.
Projects involving additions
or new construction shall be
reviewed by the full Historic
Preservation Commission.
3. The Historic Preservation
Commission meets monthly. A list
of the meeting dates and meeting
location is available in the
office of the Historic Preser-
vation Commission.
Certificates of Appropri:--ss
must be filed 10 days prior to
the meeting for placement on the
agenda. Late filings may be
accepted at the discretion of the
Staff.
The applicant or designated
representative is expected to
attend these meetings to answer
any questions. A Certificate of
Appropriateness application will
be tabled until the applicant
has provided the documentation.
The Certificate of Appropriateness
Committee will meet as necessary
at the request of the Staff. The
applicant will be invited to
attend the meeting to present his
or her plans. The Committee will
review the C of A and make a
recommendation to the full
Historic Preservation Commission
at the next regular Commission
meeting.
Decisions regarding a Certificate
of Appropriateness are rendered
at scheduled Historic Preserva-
tion Commission meetings.
Decisions only requiring Staff
approval are rendered once the
appropriate supporting documenta-
tion has been submitted.
6. A project may commence once the
Certificate of Appropriateness is
approved by the Staff or Historic
Preservation Commission (and any
other permits required by other
departments are obtained).
A copy of the approved C of A
will be filed with the Building
Department in order for the
historic preservation commission
of south bend and st. joseph county
ROOM 1123 COUNTY CITY BUILDING
south bend, indiana 46601 (219) 284-9798
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Historic Preservation Commission Members
FROM: Brian Poland Af t
DATE: November 10, 1988
SUBJECT: 5105 Ironwood Rd. - South Bend
On August 10, 1981, the Common Council designated the former schoolhouse
at this address an historically significant building by resolution at
the request of the Historic Preservation Commission and as a part of
recognizing former schoolhouses. At that time, the owners were presented
with a proclamation. The new owners have requested a new proclamation
in their name.
Staff recommends that the HPC reaffirm the original resolution honoring
the former schoolhouse. Enclosed is a copy of the new HPC Resolution
for that purpose.
RESOLUTION NO. 4-88
H RESOLUTION of the HISTORIC PRESERVATI Ot-J
COMMISSION OF SOUTH BEND AND ST . JOSEPH COUNTY,
INDIa'alJA to reaffirm the recommendation to the
Common Council establishing an h i =•tor• i cal 1 j
significant building_ by resolution for 5105
Ironwood Rd., South Bend, IN.
WHEREAS, on August 10, 1981, the Common Council of the City of
South Bend, upon request of the Historic Preservation Commission
of South Bend & St. Joseph Count;, designated and established the
former schoolhouse located at 5105 Ironwood Rd., South Bend, IN
as an h i stor i cal 1y significant structure under Resolution
No. 203- 1 ;
WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission presented za
C>_ r t i 0 _ate of Landmark by Resolution to the owner Hrs. Leslie
Nemeth;
WHEREAS, the ownership subsequently has changed to Elaine
Ma.rV Flemming.
HOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED b;. the Historic Preservation
Commission of 'mouth Bend and '= t . Joseph County, Indiana, as
follows:
Section 1.
The Hi'=tor i c Preservation Commission hereby reaffirms that the
former schoolhouse located at 5105 Ironwood Road is an
historically significant structure.
Section 2.
The Historic Preservation Commission hereby recognizes such
through the issuance of a now Certificate of Landmark by
Resolution to the new owners.
Adopted this 14th day of November 1988.
President
historicpreservation commission
of south bend and st. joseph county
ROOM 1123 COUNTY CITY BUILDING
south bend, indiana 46601 (219) 284-9798
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: HPC Members
FROM: Lynette Jentoft-Nilser�,�'
4
DATE: November 10, 1988
SUBJECT: Indiana Alliance of Historic Preservation Commissions
Attached please find a questionnaire for you as HPC members to fill out.
After you have completed the form, just mail it to the HPC office and
we will forward it on to the Indiana Alliance of Historic Preservation
Commission office.
Thanks!
LJN:EF
historic preservation commission
of south bend and st. joseph county
ROOM 1123 COUNTY CITY BUILDING
south bend, indiana 46601 (219) 284-9798
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: HPC Members
FROM: Kip Normand, Surveyor
DATE: November 10, 1988
SUBJECT: Studebaker Corridor
In light of the City's current plans for the Studebaker Corridor, it is
important that the Commission is informed on the status of the historical
resources in the corridor. There will be a report at the November 14
HPC meeting on the recent survey and research work involving the corridor.
Enclosed is the necessary background information. Please review these
materials. A discussion is anticipated and your input will be appreciated.
Other materials enclosed:
Statement of Significance for Studebaker
Industrial Complex Plant #2
Significant Dates in the History of
Studebaker, 1852-1979
Copies of Survey Cards for 47, 47A;..48 .48A
30, 30A, 33, 34, 35. 53 &::58 and
Borden Bldg.
Copy of So. Bend Trib., Dec. 20, 1987
L
•
FIGURE 1
Studebaker Corridor Site Boundary Plan
A (Transwestern) 1898, 1922 s/11
B (Building 30) c.1885, 1891 s/ll
N C (Avanti) 1891, 1950 s/11, NC
o M sm 750 moo aw 1500 D (Newman -Altman) 1905 c/10
E (Borden) c.1890, 1932 c/10
Indicates the proposed National Register District boundaries.
• —Indicates the Corridor "Fringe" area. 16 acres within
this 60 acre area are targeted for redevelopment. The area
contains 24 viable historic resources, some of these will be
effected.
.' -- A-
\
LEGAL DEPARTMENT \
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
FROM: DAVID C. CHAPLEAU
RE:
HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE; MANDATORY MAINTENANCE
IN HP DISTRICTS
Under Section 21.117.2(e)(7) of the South Bend Municipal Code
(SBMC), the Historic Preservation Commission may petition the
build
ing commissioner to cause the maintenance and/or i
historic landmark. No similar power with respect to repa r of any
n
buildings within historic districts exists This non -landmark
the power to compel the owner of private property memowilladdress
repair his premises. This memorandum addresses' �u maznrain or
issues of taking, exemplified be case l the constitutional
law, and a review of I.C. 36-7-11-2, 5,
Local preservation ordinances entail two key questions. First,
enforcing these ordinances,maze use o+ police power? Second, in
property for public ndo local governments "take" private
C��t��l T�����g�t�tiuse' Iresponse to the first question, in Penn
the Supreme - gn-Cgmpany-y�-Ng� Ygnk_Cit�, 438 U S 104 (1q78) e Court held that due to the
- legitimate legislative aims t'
preserve historic districts and thereby enhance the = � ms o
New York City's Preservation La ~ value of an area,
Power. Consistent with th w was a valid exercise of police
. e assertion that aesthetic controls produce economic benefits, historic ordinances have been upheld againspr uce
constitutional challenges as long as the ordinances r
public purpose and are not vague or arbitrary. Mah serve a valid
Orleans, 371 F.Supp. 653, aff'd 516 F 2d 1051^(5---���-��-Cit�-gf-N��
��-Citl�-gf SR��i[lgfi��ld, 11 Ill App. ^d 430 (1q6cn �zr^ 1975>; R�b��[l
vG��bl� ��k - - ^ ^ � �); Citl� gf S��t� F�
�_ _ _� ggg�g�_In9�, 73 N.M. 410 (1964). - - -
Local ordinances in other cities have empowered preservati commissions to require property owners to maintain b ildi on
u
these provisions, the commission identifies buildingsi ngs^ Under
repair and notifies the owner. If the owner fail n need of
city may make repairs at its own expense and l s to repair' the
pace
property. The enforcement of affirmative maintenance
lien on the
second question to debate: Do the provisions// ce opens the
property in violation of the Fifth Amendment affect a taking of
Constitution? of the United States
1. Traditional Tests Used to Approach the Taking Question
In "Affirmative Maintenance Provision in Historic
Preservation: A Taking of Property?", 34 S.C.L. Rev. pp 713-731
(1983), the author identifies five tests that courts h ^
the Past to approach the taking issue, have applied in
The first is the physical invasion test. A taking only occurs
when governmental action involves the physical invasion of property.
Courts do not deny compensation under these circumstances. ~
The noxious use test is the second method. When a use of
property is deemed noxious or offensive, a regulation limiting or
preventing it is not a taking. The standards of nuisance law arise
in this instance. This is the basis for upholding the South Bend
Code Enforcement Department's action to abate nuisances in historic
districts.
The third test, the most common, involves a balancing of public
benefit against private harm. If the regulation's purpose is a
legitimate governmental objective and the public will gain from it
then the regulation will qualify as legitimate. This test is '
criticized in that the scope of public benefit is difficult to
measure.
The final approach is diminution in value. In essence it states
that a taking occurs if property values decrease; thus compensation
to the private owner is necessary. Because of the indefinite
standards it implies and the question it leaves open, this test is
also criticized. For example, how much diminution in value is
tolerated before a taking has occurred? The prospective viewpoint of
the test, where the courts look to future uses and expectations
rather than simply actual loss of value, is a further criticism of
the test.
The application of one of the above four tests depends on the
facts and circumstances of individual cases. In the past,
affirmative maintenance provisions have been upheld except in extreme
cases. However, as the ensuing discussion will explain, the more
recent trend in the courts is likely to hold affirmative maintenance
to a higher degree of judicial scrutiny.
B. Recent Trends in Case Law
A recent Supreme Court case suggests an abandonment of the
tests explained above and an adoption of more rigorous standards for
affirmative maintenance provisions.
In Nollan_v._California _Coastal _Commission, 107 S.Ct. 3141
(1987), the property owner proposed to demolish a small beach front
bungalow and build a larger house in its place. Saying the house
would block access to and views of the beach, the state required the
Nollans to provide a public roadway through their property in order
to enforce development plans for the beach area. The court found
such state action to constitute a taking. The court stated that
unless a "precise match" existed between the proposed regulation to
afford views of and access to the beach and the state interests
imposing an affirmative regulation upon property owners was a '
taking. The exaction must "substantially advance" a clearly
identifiable state interest. Ngllan established a new five -part
test to determine whether or not the government may impose exactions
upon private landowners. First, a legitimate governmental purpose
must exist to justify the use of police power. Second, the courts
consider and apply the traditional regulatory taking analysis. The
third step involves the identification of adverse effects. Fourth
the courts match the exaction to the adverse effects. And finally'^
the court engages in close scrutiny of the fairness of the ea
In conclusion, the Noll��� decision stated that the regulation of land
use is a coercive, adverse government action which restricts the
exercise of a right of use intrinsic in ownership of property. As a
condition for the abridgement of that use, the government has the
burden to demonstrate that it is substantially advancing a legitimate
state interest. The decision suggests that courts will henceforth
look more closely to ensure that fairness and justness and paramount
when considering individual rights of a property owner and
corresponding public concerns. Moreover, the scope of the holding is
significant, for it is not limited to a physical taking but extends
to permit regulations imposed on property owners, and most likely
would extend to a challenge of maintenance provisions in an historic
district ordinance.
I. Recent_Applications-of-the-Nollan-Test
A 1988 case in the Washington Court of Appeals applies and
reinforces the strict standards set by the Ngllan decision. In
Unlimited_v._KitSaC)_CgLtnty, 50 Wash. App. 723, 750 P.2d 651 (Wash.
App. 1988), the dispute arose out of the exaction by the county,
without compensation, of two property interests as conditions for its
issuance of a planned unit development permit. The County Engineer
and Public Works Department required Unlimited to provide a public
right-of-way and to dedicate a portion of its property for future
extension of the development. Unlimited would not be compensated for
these acts.
Citing Ngllan as authority for its decision, the court held the
exaction to be an unconstitutional taking. The court stated that
police power is "properly exercised in zoning situations where the
problem to be remedied by the exaction arises from the development
under consideration, and the exaction is reasonable and for a
legitimate public purpose. Unless these requirements are met, the
exaction is an unconstitutional taking." 750 P.2d at 653. The
holding illustrates the trend in recent cases that courts are less
willing to uphold zoning regulations than interfere with private
property ownership rights.
C. FactLtal_Differentiation-from_Prior-Case-Law
In addition to the new tests set by the above cases, factual
��
/
distinctions from prior case law, where affirmative maintenance
provisions have been upheld, deserve attention.
In Rebman_v__Ci tY_of_Seri. ngf i el d, 11 Ill. App. 2d 430, 250
N.E.2d 282 (Ct. App. Ind. 1969), an affirmative maintenance provision
was upheld that required landowners in the vicinity of the Abraham
Lincoln home to maintain their premises. Moreover, the ordinance at
state contained explicit provisions for alteration, demolition and
use of property in historic districts. Similarly in Maher v_ City of
New Orleans, 516 F.2d 1051 (1975) and City_of_Upw_Qrleans_v__
Permagent, __ La. __, 5 So.2d 129 (1941), the courts held that an
ordinance for the preservation and maintenance of buildings in the
historic Vieux Carre section of New Orleans was within the scope of
police power.
These cases should be noted for their factual distinctions. Not
only did they involve historic districts of clear national
importance, often encompassing large sections of land, but the
ordinances contained specific provisions authorizing upkeep within
historic districts, and this authority was in the original
ordinance. Although the historic districts of South Bend ought not
be trivialized in comparison to the above decisions, an arguable
difference in degree does exist; the historic districts of South Bend
hold less status than the French Quarter. The rights of private
landowners in South Bend should be considered in light of the more
recent constitutional tests of the Nollan decision. Moreover, the
SBMC did not contain an explicit provision authorizing a city to
compel a landowner to maintain his premises when the petition to
create the historic districts were filed with the Common Council
pursuant to SBMC 21-117.2. Fundamental fairness may require a new
vote of historic district property owners to allow an amendment
creating maitenance authority.
D. Relev_ant_Indiana_Statutes
Sections 36-7-11-2, 5 of the Indiana Code are likely to be
open to debate as authority in the case at hand. Although section
36-7-11-2 states that because South Bend established an Historic
Preservation Commission prior to the date of the Indiana law, our
commission may continue to operate, regardless of whether it is
inconsistent with the state law. However, opponents of an
affirmative maintenance provision would point out that I.C. 36-7-11-5
sets out the only powers an historic commission may have and
affirmative maintenance is not listed.
CONCLUSION
Early case law reveals that, in the absence of extreme
circumstances, affirmative maintenance provisions traditionally
withstand constitutional attacks. These cases demonstrate the courts
use of various tests in evaluating the taking issue. However, these
cases involve unique factual situations, and more recent case law
exemplifies the heightened level of judicial scrutiny in analyzing
2
zoning regulations. Courts now hold governmental agencies to strict
standards in order to justify their taking of private property.
/sjw/DCC
T14 AP r'�vr# V'rub
STATE OF INDIANA SS.
St. Joseph County
I Joseph E . Kernan , Mayor of the City of South Bend in
pursuance of the Statutes of the State of Indiana, have constituted and appointed, and by these
presents do constitute and appoint F. Jay Nimtz as a member of the
Historic Preservation Commission
in and for said city
subject to removal at any time, and until his successor shall be appointed and qualified.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said
City of South Bend, this 4th day of November lg 88
MAYOR
Term Expires: 10-31-91
STATE OF INDIANA
SS:
St. Joseph County
t� F. Jay Nimtz do solemnly swear that I will support the
Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Indiana, and that I will
faithfully discharge the duties of the Historic Preservation Commission
so help me God.
Subscribed and sworn to before me at my office in South Bend, this day of
A.D., 19
ITY CLERK
511 W. Colfax �
South Bend, IN 46601
Hstoric preservatuon co !I Etll L! Esguo L1
of south bend and st. joseph county
ROOM 1123 COUNTY CITY BUILDING
south bend, indiana 46601 (219) 284-9798
M I N U T E S
Regular H�,.,tinq Third Floor Conference Room
November 14, 1988 Room 323 County/City Building
I. Call t ; Order
The meeting was. called to order at 7:38 p.m.
II. Roll Ca.l1
MEMBERS PRESEP,IT : Mrs. Joann Spor, 1 eder ; Mr. John Ox i an ; Mr. Odell
f,lewburn ; Mrs. Mar tha Choi tz ; Hr . Char 1 i e Hayes;
Mrs. Janeanne Petr•as.s, Mr. F.J. Nimtz; Mr. David
Cha.pleau, Deputy City Attorney; Ms. Lynette
Jentoft-tali lsen, Director; Mr. Brian Poland,
Administrative Assistant: Mrs. Elaine Fountain,
Commission Secretary. Mr. Kip Normand, Research
A-si =.ta.nt.
MEMBERS ABSEPdT: Mr. Herb Herendeen: I*Irs. Gina DeLarueI le.
ALSO PRESENT: h1s. Jeanne Derbeck; South Bend Tribune; Mrs. Elaine
Fl emmi nq, 51055 Iront.)ood Rd. ; Mr•s. Jean Dennen,
111c E. Wayne St.
III. A. Certificates of Appropriateness
No Report
B. Historic Landmarks
1) 51055 Ironwood Rd. - LL by Resolution
Mr. Poland presented a resolution (4-88) reaffirming the
designation of the former schoolhouse at 51055 Ironwood Rd.
as a local landmark (historically significant structure).
Mrs. Choitz moved to approve resolution 4-88; Mr. Newburn
seconded; motion approved. A new proclamation was presented
to the owner.
November 14, IF88 PAGE 1
1V. Regular Business•
A . Approval of Minutes
Mr. Oxian stated a correction to the minutes should be made under
Legal - b) Facade Easements to read: Ms. Jentoft-Nilsen reported
that Mr. Oxian has proceeded to offer drafts for facade
easements, etc. Mr. Newburn moved to approve minutes as amended;
Mrs. Petrass seconded; motion approved.
B. Treasurer's Report
Mr. Newburn moved to approve treasurer's report; Mrs•. Choitz
seconded; motion approved.
C. Correspondence
(Appendix A)
Mr. Newburn moved to receive and file; Mr. Nimtz seconded; motion
approved.
D. Committee Reports
1. Certificate of Appropriateness
a) 14912 Brick Rd. - District No. i Schoolhouse - LL
Ms. Jentoft-Nilsen reported the County Council had second
reading and approved the resolution to delay demolition
for up to one year in order to prepare a preservation
plan.
Ms. Jentoft-Nilsen thanked Mr. Newburn for his support at
the County Council meeting.
Ms. Jentoft- Nilsen also stated that on November 9, 1988,
a hearing petitioned by the Building Commissioner and
Ad -Hoc Committee, was• held in which Judge Montgomery
signed a temporary order restraining the owner from
taking any demolition or alteration activity on the
property.
b) 19109 Johnson Rd. - LL - Southland
Ms. Jentoft-Nilsen reported staff approved the design
of a single family unit on Lot 22, Southland, Section 2.
November 14, 1988 PAGE 2
2. Budget &: Finance
a) CD Matching Funds
Ms. Jentoft-Nilsen reported that the request for $7,000
in CD matching funds for 1989 from the Economic
Development Dept. had been reduced to $6,500 due to
budget cuts in their department. We may request the
additional amount next spring for funds that may become
available then.
3. LeQal
a) Historic District Maintenance
Mr. Chapleau handed out a report titled " Historic
Preservation Ordinance: Mandatory Maintenance in HP
Districts" which he compiled. Mr. Chapleau reported that
under Section 21.117.2(e) (7) of the South Bend Municipal
Code, HPC may petition the building commissioner to cause
the maintenance and./or repair of any historic landmark.
Mr. Chapleau stated however, that no similar power with
respect to non -landmark buildings within historic
districts exists.
4. Historic Districts
a) Lincolnway East Historic District
Ms. Jentoft-Nilsen reported Common Council is having
first reading this evening to repeal Ordinance No. 734384
which established the Lincolnway East Historic District
and to amend Ordinance No. 4990-68 to establish new
district boundaries for the LWE Historic District.
5. Historic Landmarks
a) Muessel Drewery`s Brewery
Mr. Poland reported that he met with Mr. Charles Derr of
Omniplex (former Muessel Drewery`s Brewery) in regard to
possible landmark designation.
Mrs. Sporleder directed the Landmark Committee and staff
to pursue all avenue• in regard to the Hoosier and
Muessel Drewery Breweries such as honorary landmark
designation and National Register nomination.
November 14, 1988 PAGE 3
6. Public Relations & Community Education
a) C of A Procedures Brochure
Mr. Poland presented the final draft of the C of A
brochure; Mrs. Choitz moved to approve the final draft as
corrected by Mr. Nimtz; Mr. Newburn seconded; motion
approved.
7. Director's Report
a) Annual Plational Trust Meeting
Ms. Jentoft-Nilsen reported she will be sending reports
on the National Trust Meeting, the Main Street Meeting
and the Habs/Haer Photography session in the mail.
b) Studebaker Corridor
Mr. Normand, of the HPC staff made a presentation on the
history and importance of the Studebaker Corridor
including results of the recent survey. A discussion
regarding the presentation and the City plans for the
bond issue followed.
Old Business
No Report
VI. New Business
No Report
VII. Hearing of Visitors
No Report
VIII. Announcements 84 Miscellaneous Matters.
Ms. Jeanne Derbeck announced that she will be retiring as a regular
reporter for the South Bend Tribune. The Commission thanked her for
her years of sere i ce .
Mr. Newburn moved to adjourn; Mrs•. Choitz seconded; meeting adjourned at
9:40 p.m.
November 14, 1988 PAGE 4
appendix A
HPC Correspondence
November 3, 1988
a. Notification of design competition from Clemson PAC Competition,
Clemson, NC.
b. PANA Newsletter, Oct., 1988 - Vol. 16, No. 7.
c . Museum News, Fal 1 , 1988.
d. Historic Preservation, November/December, 1988.
e. Letter and complimentary quarterly publication of Heritage.Education
Quarterly, published by The Preservation Library and Resource Center,
Madison, GA.
f. Flier for National Alliance of Preservation Commissions Annual Workshop
on Saturday, October 22, 1988 in Cincinnati, OH.
g. Fliers from NIHS on various activities during October, November,
December, 1988.
Preservation News, October, 1988.
i. Flier for "Water and Windows" seminar on October 27-28, 1988 in New
York.
j. Southhold Newsletter, October/November, 1988.
k. Flier and registration card from Southhold for 16th Annual Recognition
Day Buffet, October 30, 1968.
1. Catalogue from Light Impressions, Fall, 1988.
M. St. Joseph Valley Record, from NIHS, Augu=_.t, 1988, Vol. 1, PJo.2.
n. Catalogue from Computerland, Winter, 1988/89.
Fite:
TR RPT NOV 88
Page 1
12-5-88
LINE
ITEM
REV BUDGET 1988
CURRENT BILLS
YEAR TO DATE
QUIETUS
BALANCE
(212)
POSTAGE
$500
$500.00
$15.75
$289.60
$0.00
$210.40
(213)
TRAVEL
$250
$250.00
$30.00
$250.00
$0.00
$0.00
(214)
MILEAGE
$200
$235.00
$230.11
$230.11
$0.00
$4.89
(215)
BOOKS
$100
$100.00
$0.00
$63.20
$0.00
$36.80
(220)
CONF EXP
$250
$250.00
$0.00
$250.00
$0.00
$0.00
(241)
PRINTING
$100
$175.00
$5.62
$167.14
$0.00
$7.86
(242)
LNDMK AD
$300
$190.00
$65.71
$65.71
$0.00
$124.29
(243)
PHOTOG
$300
$300.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$300.00
(252)
EQUIPMENT
$ 75
$75.00
$35.00
$35.00
$0.00
$40.00
(211�
LEGAL SERV
$375
$375.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$375.00
(2
TECH ASST
$350
$350.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$350.00
(2
LEGAL NOTE
$ 50
$50.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$50.00
(360)
OFFICE SUP
$750
$750.00
$150.70
$750.00
$0.00
$0.00
(570)
DUES
$ 50
$50.00
$0.00
$25.00
$0.00
$25.00
(571)
SUBSCRIP
$ 50
50.00
$25.00
$43.00
$0.00
$7.00
TOTAL
$3,700.00
$558.09
$2,168.76
$0.00
$1,531.24
HISTORIC PRES FUND
$21,435.00
$0.00
$21,435.00
$0.00
$0.00
SUR REC MGMT FUND
$18,154.07
$0.00
$18,154.07
$0.00
$0.00
SUR REC MGMT II FUND
$14,000.00
$5,247.61
$8,488.79
$0.00
$263.60
TOTAL
$53,589.07
$5,247.61
$48,077.86
$0.00
$1,794.84
GRAND TOTAL
$57,289.07
$5,805.70
$50,246.62
$0.00
$1,794.84
SMALL
TOWN SURVEY
$994.06
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$994.06