July 2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ujdak: I vote in favor of the motion to deny. I just think that the home deserves better treatment its rated outstanding and the gentleman from the audience stated it... it's part of the game.. That's the way it is. Klusczinski: Thank you. Timothy Klusczinski, i move, or vote in favor of the motion to deny C ofA 2008-0521. I have grave concerns that the owner may not be aware of the rating or the condition as it currently stands. And may not know what this change would do to compromise that rating. Speaking also to public comments about painting, its not necessarily more expensive in the long term to do a proper paint job and some studies have shown, and certainly this is a case by case basis, that you can achieve even a 15 year paint job and life expectancy. Still other studies suggest too that the national marketing value of a landmark property could be 10-15% if preserved than if covered. So there are marketing issues that should be investigated. I don't feel, given the current Group B standards that this project is in complement with those and that's why I vote to deny or in favor of the motion to deny. Patrick. Lynn Patrick in favor of my motion to deny because the C ofA 2008-0521 as submitted is incompatible with the standards of that district. Klusczinski. It's a single site landmark. Patrick: Mm-hmm. Sassano: David Sassano, I'm in favor of the motion. The project appears not to live up to the requirements of the standards. It appears to significantly change or alter the existing character of the house and it doesn't appear to be any good rationale for that change. Chase: Mary Jane Chase and I vote in favor of denying the application. The C ofA is ambiguous as to what's going to be done. Too many decisions would be made on site. When you buy a house of this structure you're a caretaker, and the reasons for wanting to do this despite a comment about loving the historical aspects are all personal. I understand and I sympathize with taxes and all that, it's something that we are all going through and I sympathize with her. I find confusion though with saying you love the house but the taxes etc, and I don't'see any correlation and I vote to deny. Klusczinski. Motion is defeated, or ... C ofA 2008-0521 is defeated. Catherine will forward a letter of denial... Czarnecki: Can I ask one question though? If the house gets painted, do I have to come back to a meeting? Klusczinski: No, that's an in kind maintenance repair and you don't need an application for that. . Moved: Patrick Second: Ujdak Denial of 2008-0521 Approved 5-0 Application Number: 2008-0523 Property Location: 1031 E. Jefferson Property Owner: Don Dietz Landmark or District Designation: Local Landmark Rating: Outstanding STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCEMISTORIC CONTEXT: This property was part of the tract of land owned by John Mohler Studebaker since the 1880s. In 1899 he commissioned architects Dirham and Schneider to design this thirteen room (originally it had nine rooms) Queen Anne Style house and then sold it to his nephew, George Mohler Witwer on 1899. George Witwer was married to Mary E. Violette of Elkhart in 1895. He served as a private secretary to his uncle and as a consultant to the Studebaker family after his uncle's death. This Studebaker-Witwer House was reclassified as a Free Classic in the 2005 City of South Bend Survey. APPLICATION ITEMS: Replace wooden stockade fence with new design (Exhibit A), 6 foot tall fence. In kind materials. Repair of clapboards in-kind on carriage house. E