Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-02-87 Zoning & Vacation atuuuntttrt at part ZONING AND VACATION COMMITTEE tkc &mmou Consult of tht Qittg of*until gnat The September 2, 1987 meeting of the Zoning and Vacation Committee was called to order by its Chairman, John Voorde, at 4: 15 p .m. in the Council informal meeting room. Persons in attendance included: Councilmen Braboy, Voorde, Serge, Beck, Zakrzewski, Taylor and Puzzello; Doug Carpenter (citizen member of the Committee) , John Oxion, Kenneth Fedder , David Chapleau , Dick Magino, Jean M. Dennen , Barbara Brook, Martha Choitz , Brian Poland , Lynette J. Nilien and Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand . Councilman Voorde noted that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the creation of historical districts. He then called .upon Mr. John Oxion , the Vice President of the Historic Preservation Commission, to give an overview of the activities of the Commission. Mr. Oxion noted that the Commission was establised in 1973 and that he has attended all meetings conducted since that time. He currently serves as Vice President. , Councilman Taylor inquired as to the Commission's position on the proposed East Wayne Street historic district. Mr. Oxion noted that the Commission is in favor of it. He stated that at least fifty-one percent (51%) of all residents within a district typically must vote in favor of creation of the historic designation. Every proposed historic district within South Bend has been approached by the Commission. However, he did note that with regard to specific landmark designations , the Commission seeks out the individual land owner. Mr. Oxion stated that the East Wayne District would be of the same caliber as that of the North Shore District. Councilman Serge questioned how the Commission would address a home within a district which has a slate roof. Mr. Oxion noted that in the case of the Union Station which had a copper roof , the Commission agreed to allow that owner to use something other than copper for that roof due to the exorbitant costs. He noted that in the case of exorbitant costs or economic hardship to the property owner, the Commission would consider a substitute material . He also noted that in the North Shore District, part of a slate roof was blown away and the Commission agreed to asphalt shingles instead of slate roofing. Councilman Voorde questioned the procedure used when a home- owner within a district with historic designation needed to make repairs. It was indicated that the property owner was required to personally sign for a certificate of appropriateness and not the contractor. Mr. Chapleau did note, however, that such a form 'mu •RCU$ opePle. rusuoNINO CO. e Zoning and Vacation Committee Minutes/September 4, 1987 Page 2 could be mailed to the property owner and reinterated that the signature of the property owner is required rather than that of the contractor. Councilman Voorde the procedure used if indivuals in a designated historic district wish to be removed at a later time. Mr. Oxion noted that a review is to be made every two (2) years; however, a petition for removal of the entire district could not be heard until after an initial period of five (5) years. The Council Attorney questioned what rules, regulations and standards were adopted by the Historic Preservation Commission and whether such documents could be sent to the City Clerk so that the individual Councilmen could review them in their entirety. Mr. Oxion noted that each of the individual historic districts have their own set of regulations. However , upon further quesioning by the Council Attorney, Mr. Oxion stated that a copy of the "Preservation Plan for the City of South Bend" could be provided "for the Council to review. " Councilman Serge questioned whether those who voted against the proposed historic designation were forced to be within the district if the Council approved it. Mr. Oxion stated that they would be forced into the district. Councilman Beck questioned the procedure used with regard to balloting. Jean Dennen explained the procedure. She noted that an instruction sheet is provided to each of the property owners and that they are instructed to vote, fold their envelope in half and place it in a larger manila envelope. The ballots are then picked up with the individuals voting prior to the person coming to the residence to pick up the ballot. She also noted that the residents have the option to mail in their ballot. The deadline for voting was May 18th . Councilman Voorde noted that he has heard several different votes and specifically asked how many potential voters could have voted and the actual vote results. Mr. Poland noted that 157 persons could have voted ; 87 voted yes, 34 voted no , and 3 abstained . Councilman Barcome questioned whether they have ever had a situation with the problems as those of the East Wayne situation. It was noted that Lincolnway East had several problems and , in particular , that they did not reach the fifty percent (50%) affirmative vote. In that situation, the proponents of the historic designation were told the approach the district Councilman, which action was eventually taken. • r Zoning and Vacation Committee Minutes/September 4, 1987 Page 3 Mr. Oxion noted that pursuant to the ordinance, the Council is the appeal body and not the City Administration. Mr. Doug Carpenter questioned whether a study with regard to the appropriateness of a historic district was ever done by the Commission. Mr. Poland noted that standardized cards are used from the State office. Martha Choitz stated that there must be "significant contributions" to the City for such a designation. Councilman Barcome questioned what effect such a designation would have on property values. Mrs. Choitz speculated that although there were not have any firm statistics, it would probably increase in value. It was noted that the first home in the proposed district was built in 1925 and the last home was built in 1980. Councilman Puzzello stated that she had serious concern over the voting procedure and believes that it should have remained secret throughout the entire process. She further believes that the Commission itself should have counted the ballots and that she had concern with regard the use of a "yes" or "no" on the outside of the envelope and that effect on the secrecy. The Committee was then shown a map which indicated those lots voting favorably in blue and those voting against the proposed designation in red. Councilman Puzzello also voiced concern with regard to a map which was being circulated showing the voting results. She reiterated her belief that the vote should have remained secret . Mr. Fedder noted , however , that the petition in opposition to the proposed designation started after the vote was counted and , to the best of his knowledge, that the map in question was prepared after the petition in opposition was circulated. Lynette Nilien stated that she has been on the staff for approxi- mately two (2) weeks and that the staff was required to review the vote in light of the discrepancy in the number of signatures on the petition in opposition to the proposed designation and the actual number of ballots. She noted that each property owner could sign the petition whereas only one (1 ) vote per lot was allowed in the balloting procedure. She further indicated that the geographic area was determined by the neighborhood and those desiring historic status designation. Barbara Brooks asked several questions with regard to both the ordinance and the standards. She specifically questioned which were enforced by the Historic Preservation Commission. She questioned the overinclusiveness and underinclusiveness and which Zoning and Vacation Committee Minutes/September 4, 1987 Page 4 would be specifically followed. Mr. David Chapleau, attorney for the Historic Preservation Commission, then read from the City Code with regard to the standards. He noted that the question of "color" was not addressed in the City Code. Mrs. Dennen noted that possible commercial intrusion from the surrounding area into the neighborhood was a point of concern to many of the residents and was a factor in petitioning for historic district designation. Councilman Braboy voiced concern that such a designation may cause undue hardships on property owners, especially those who do not wish to be within such a district. Councilman Voorde noted that since the overall purpose of today's meeting was to hear the advantages and disadvantages of historic district designation, a formal vote would not be taken on the East Wayne proposed district by the Committee. He noted that there would be another meeting of the Committee on the 14th of September to specifically address that proposed designation. There being no further business to come before the Committee , the meeting was adjourned at 5 : 25 p.m. Respectfully submitted , Councilman John Voorde , Chairman