Laserfiche WebLink
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT <br />9 APPLICATION -- 1996-0301 <br />PROPERTY -- 105 South Main Street <br />South Bend, IN <br />OWNER -- St. Joseph County <br />DESIGNATION -- Local Landmark <br />RATING -- Outstanding (0/13) <br />STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE/HISTORIC CONTEXT <br />Construction on the third county courthouse began on October 31, 1896 and the <br />building was completed in 1898. The building was designed by the Chicago <br />office of Shepley, Rutan , and Coolidge, a Boston firm, and constructed by <br />James Stewart & Company. The supervising architect for the project was George <br />Selby who remained in South Bend and practiced briefly with Ernest Young. <br />The style of the building is Academic Classicism as had been popularized at <br />the Columbian Exposition in Chicago. It is constructed substantially in <br />limestone. The Dome is constructed of iron frame with terre-cotta leaf pattern <br />shingles. <br />PROPOSED CHANGE <br />The owner proposes to replace the existing dome framing and cladding. The <br />replacement material is proposed as precast concrete panels articulated to <br />40 replicate the shingle pattern, restore the copper cupola elements and flagpole <br />and reconstruct the fineal crown. The owner also proposes to repoint stone <br />masonry as required around the entire edifice and to clean the building with <br />mild chemical agents and low pressure water rinse. <br />STANDARDS <br />The Preservation Guidelines and Standards for Local Landmarks state: <br />Group B <br />C.1. Structure - Necessary structural improvements , where safety demands, <br />should be accomplished in such a way as to cause minimal visual change to the <br />original style and construction. <br />C.2. Construction and Style - All work should be done in the architectural <br />style and in a technique compatible with that of the original structure..... <br />C.3. Materials - Additions and improvements involving any new material in the <br />building should be of the same material as the original. It should be the same <br />size and texture. An alternative material may be allowed if it duplicates the <br />original. <br />RECOMMENDATION <br />As of this writing, a meeting of the Landmarks Committee has been held to <br />review this proposal with its designers. It is anticipated that the Landmarks <br />committee will make recommendation following this meeting in consultation with <br />• Staff. Therefore no recommendation is put forward in this report. <br />David B. Duvall <br />3/14/95 <br />