October 2016 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Preservation Specialist Szaday, reported on July Code Hearing for this property. Code Enforcement had issues with the structure of the proposed roof and the walls. Executive Director Feasel gave the opinion of the Building Department: "the Building Commissioner said this morning that `the roof in its current configuration appears to be of catastrophic potential"'. Discussion of owner's plans for building and budget constraints, and commissioners' suggestions, including obtaining additional estimates for flat roof replacement, designing a simplified hipped roof that would be less visible from front, obtaining a structural assessment from the Building Department, speaking to Community Investment about assistance, checking state and national resources for possible funding, as well as Firefighter's Local 362 for help in saving this building. Commissioner Gordon moved to deny application as submitted. Seconded by Commissioner Anderson. President Klusczinski clarified that votes in the affirmative will support the motion to deny the application and reminded the members to state their reasons when voting. Roll call was ordered. Commissioner Hertel (AYE): the best course of action in maintaining the historic integrity of the building Commissioner Parker (AYE): due to the architectural character of building, and the lack of other options/quotations Commissioner Anderson (AYE): lack of conforming to architectural integrity of historic building Commissioner Gordon (AYE): not in keeping with the integrity of the landmark status Commissioner Klusczinski (AYE): work is not in keeping with Landmark standards and guidelines, work was performed without prior approval by the HPC and the Building Department, evidence suggests that the new changes are not structurally sound and in compliance with current building code, there is only one quotation obtained by the applicant for in-kind work, and there is insufficient documentation to consider alternative proposals at this time. Commissioner Voll (AYE): a tough decision because of all the work the owner has put into it. The building, if it were restored, in that neighborhood, would be a classic piece. That is a difficult option here, but there is hope that there may be ways to achieve that. Commissioner Buccellato (AYE): project does not meet standards and guidelines, in particular that additions to Landmarks should not detract from the original form. This roof, as proposed, will detract from the original form. Would like to see the building saved, and recommended that if a sloped roof is necessary financially, the owner would come back with a proposal that does not detract from the form of the structure. Commissioner Gelfman (AYE): architectural integrity, lack of other quotes on a flat roof, changing from flat roof to gabled roof, losing the structural integrity of the building as -is historically, and materials being used. Commissioner Molnar (AYE): echoes Commissioner Voll's statements that this is a tough choice. Suggests checking with Community Investment to see if they have any programs that could assist in this project. Nine in favor, none opposed. Vote: 9 — 0 COA#2016-0809 Denied. 4. 1071 Riverside Drive COA#2016-0907 Riverside Drive Representation by Steven Farrell, 2072 Miami Street, South Bend. STAFF REPORT CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Date: 7 September 2016 on