Main Street loses its steeple?

[sheclown]

Here's the deal...protections aren't in place for non-contributing structures; however, those pieces of Springfield still must meet the criteria set by the Historic Planning Commission.  One needs a COA to put a fence on a vacant lot -- or build a house or other structure. 

What is wrong with the picture when it is okay to demolish in a historic district but to build you must get permission?  And why?  Because that new construction, be it a fence or a house, is PART OF THE HISTORIC FABRIC -- A PIECE OF THE WHOLE.

We need a better plan.  The steeple lesson is a costly one.  Let's learn from it.

[sheclown]

I just returned from the HPC meeting.  I don't have the final word because I stomped out like a little girl (which at the time seemed preferable to cussing everyone out so I'm taking it as the more mature response.)

After spending 45 minutes discussing whether or not to allow a pool enclosure on a non-contributing new construction house in Riverside and then NOT being able to speak on the steeple, I really was over feeling like Alice in Wonderland.

Bottom Line:

The neighborhood has been cut out from all of this -- the administratively issued COA, our request for appeal was ignored, and now to not be allowed to speak on our concerns is alarming to say the least. 

I will trust the remaining members of the audience to give us the results as I am sitting at my computer now and not at the Ed Ball building, but I believe the commissioners will request a "temporary" solution to the open structure and work towards a steeple replacement.

[Timkin]

City Government is most likely streamlining the process so as to do exactly as you described Sheclown, and that is TO IGNORE OUR EFFORTS AND OUR INPUT.   This is very alarming, but I am not sure of the recourse , if any we have.

Next thing you know they will manipulate codes and laws so historic properties have zero protection and they can demolish anything at any time without asking anyone. I suspect this has long been in the works. 

[sheclown]

At the end of the day, the situation is like this.  The commissioners will probably insist that the steeple be returned, eventually.  The church cannot afford to return it.  The hole in the top of the church is filling the church with water and has been for a month.

You do the crystal-gazing.

Let's hope that it gets capped quickly.

[sheclown]

The purpose of declaring certain structures as "non-contributing" is that you want to eventually "weed" them from the neighborhood. So, there is nothing to stop one from demolishing anything non-contributing. Ironically, you cannot ADD anything to the historic district without great detail, permission, and often expense. The church finds itself in the position where they had open-season to demo, but there is going to be a huge "HELL NO" when it comes to replacing it with a lesser steeple or other structure of any kind.

The church wanted a 14 foot steeple which one of the staff compared to "a pencil on a cake". This is why the commissioners are saying that they may temporarily cap it, but the church will go through tough efforts to replace it with anything but what was there, originally.

I don't believe the church had any clue about the process.

[acme54321]

Does anyone know what happened to the steeple that was removed?

[Timkin]

At the end of the day, the situation is like this.  The commissioners will probably insist that the steeple be returned, eventually.  The church cannot afford to return it.  The hole in the top of the church is filling the church with water and has been for a month.

You do the crystal-gazing.

Let's hope that it gets capped quickly.

Not crystal gazing. Just observing from your comments , that they did not listen to public input much.
sorry.

[YellowBluffRoad]

That church hit my car once back in the 90s - so I can affirm that steeple's always been dangerous. 

No, seriously, it did. The car was parked on the other side of 8th from the church (next to the pawn shop that used to be at the corner). Back then it was Main Street Baptist Church, and the church was using volunteers versus a licensed contractor, to try and save money. They pulled the cross down from the steeple to repair or replace it. The wood was rotted badly, and broke in the middle as they were hauling it down, and the cross bounced into the rear fender of my car, badly denting it.

I know from the personal experience of that church hitting my car that the steeple was in structural disrepair back then, and I don't think it got any more than a fresh coat of paint at that time. It's been a while since I've examined that building, but if neither owner has renovated since then, the steeple's wood rot will have only gotten worse.

That being said, I wish they could fund replacement also. Having seen the before and after pics, it just looks weird without the steeple. If they put a new one up, I promise I'll keep my cars away from it.

[Timkin]

Perhaps a community fund raiser to help them put a replacement steeple, in place?

[strider]

Just a note about the missing steeple.  It was a steel framework and looked very substantial.  The wood issue was most likely just the cosmetics.  I also understand that the wood, or parts of it, had been covered with vinyl.

Somewhere it was posted that the church more or less said no to the idea of the community fundraising as then the community would want a say in the appearance and/ or how it was done.  The church did not seem to like that idea much. 

[Timkin]

I would contribute.  I would not stipulate what to put there.

[strider]

Due to the "Steeple Issue", Preservation SOS had asked the city that a discussion be started to address future issues like this where structures that were listed as noncontributing but indeed did contribute to the overall community could be protected from things like the removal of a steeple.  The idea was to at least get community input before approve such things.

While PSOS kept asking about it, the city kept saying it was being worked on, but never indicated anything formal was being done.  SPAR indicated that it was also being worked on and promised, as did the city, that PSOS would be involved.  A few days ago, the results of at least one meeting involving SPAR, RAP and the HP department were finally distributed.

It seems to me that this is being handled via a policy change (I don't think this has to go past the HPC to be approved and used.).  Various things can be approved by the historical department administratively and various things must be taken to the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC).  At the time of the removal of the steeple, the policy was that things like this were handled on a case by case basis administratively.  Based on the new policy being proposed to the HPC this coming week, major changes like removing the steeple will now have to be decided by the HPC.  However, noncontributing structures like this church can still be demolished with adminstrive approval.   Which means it will be easier to tear down the church than to remove the steeple. 

Below is the three sections I belive concern the Steeple Issue.

26)Demolition
(307.106a)   
By Admin:
a.   Accessory structures that are not architecturally significant and are deteriorated
b.   Non-contributing structures (307.106a)
c.   Demolition of a feature/space that is not architecturally significant or street visible
d.   MCC emergency declared NOTICE TO JHPC REQUIRED BY NEXT MEETING

By HPC
a.   Contributing structures
b.   Demolition of a significant feature
c.   Unclassified (contributing/non-contributing) structures
d.   Architecturally significant accessory structures
e.   

32)Alterations to non-contributing structures built outside the period of significance   

By Admin
a.   Small/cosmetic changes such as the installation/ replacement of railings, window replacement and door replacement
b.   Work that restores the historic appearance that is documented through pictorial, historic, physical evidence (see Restoring missing features)
c.   When the proposed work does not negatively impact the historic design or overall character and otherwise meets the Regulations
      
By HPC
a.   Larger scale changes that affect setbacks, wholesale change of style, and changes height
b.   Wholesale changes in materials

33)   Alterations to non-contributing structures built within the period of significance   


By Admin
REVIEWED CASE BY CASE

While we, as a historic district, get something we need, it is done a bit off.  This is what one would expect when the organization helping to make the changes (SPAR) is also the organization that not too long ago thought demolition was a positive thing for Springfield.

The meeting next Wednesday of the HPC is becoming important as while the above issue is important by itself, there are several changes being proposed by SPAR that are in the hindering not helping way of doing things and the community needs to step up and stop the nonsense.

[mbwright]

Regarding  "Alterations to non-contributing structures built outside the period of significance", how is the Period of significance determined?  is this a year, a style, or age?

[aubureck]

Period of significance was determined by structures that were 50 years or older at time of designation as a historic district.  In the case of Springfield it is approximately structures that are older than 1985.  In the case of Riverside Avondale it is structures built prior to 1948

[strider]

I think for Springfield, Aubureck intended to say 50 years older than 1985?  So structures built prior to about 1936? 

The RUDAT study done in 1985 was used to obtain the Historic Designation for Springfield in 1987.

Wasn't Riverside/ Avondale a Historic District before Springfield?