HomeMy WebLinkAbout3. 201 W Northshore_COA 2019-0709_PACKETSTAFF REPORT
CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR A
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
Date: July 11, 2019
Application Number: 2019-0701
Property Location: 201 W North Shore
Architectural Style/Date/Architect or Builder: Neo-Classical / 1906 /
Rider House
Property Owner: Thomas and Joann Broden
Landmark or District Designation: West North Shore Local Historic
District, Ordinance #6512-78
Rating: Notable
DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURE/ SITE: Two story (plus attic) Neo-Classical structure has a square plan on a
brick foundation. Multiple later additions add to the footprint of the structure, specifically a sleeping porch and bay
window at the northwest and southwest corners, respectively. Two non-symmetrically located chimneys punctuate
the roofline. Aluminum siding covers the exterior, although exposed wood remains on the recent additions. The
main façade entry porch has paired Corinthian columns supporting a large bracketed and dentilled pediment with a
fan lite on the transom into an attic space of the third story. Two additional Corinthian piers engage the façade.
The front entrance is a double-leaf wood panel door with single pane side and transom. Windows are wood double
hung throughout. The flat-roofed porte cochere is supported by smaller Corinthian columns.
A two story Queen Anne style rectangular carriage house on a concrete foundation is northeast of the main
structure. The structure has multi-paned casement windows as well as double-hung windows flanking the primary
car door. Two front entrances for carriages or cars are double leaf wooden doors with multipaned windows. The
central door has a small roof canopy with a gable and large brackets.
ALTERATIONS: A sleeping porch and bay window are later additions. COA 1987-0610 allowed for the
replacement of the curved concrete sidewalk from the base of the steps to the street. COA 1989-0908 allowed for
the removal of a dead sugar maple tree from the east side of the front yard. COA 1997-1027 allowed for the
installation of ornamental iron railings on the terrace steps along with light fixtures. COA 1999-1101 allowed for
the replacement of the driveway with new concrete. COA 2002-0916 allowed for re-roofing with “3 & 1 style
black fiberglass shingles.” COA 2002-1017 allowed for the replacement of the copper half-round gutters with new
5” galvanized gutters and downspouts. RME 2012-0503 allowed for the removal of 2 rotten columns at car port
and subsequent replacement with ‘Endura-Stone’ composite columns from Pacific Column Company. RME 2016-
1213 allowed for soffit repair work, re-roof of internal gutters and flat roof work. RME 2017-1106 allowed for the
removal and later replacement of multiple trees on property in advance of later projects. COA 2018-0314 allowed
for the demolition and reconstruction of the front porch, including the pillars.
APPLICATION ITEMS: “Owners are seeking 1) A reduction in size of overall porch at the property – 2)
elimination of non-functioning / non-code staircase extending off the port-cochere – it was designed solely for
horse drawn carriages and not for cars; 3) Reduction in columns from 4 to 2 on front of house – 2 of 4 columns
(inner columns) are non-load bearing – nonstructural; 4) Replace fluted style columns to cylinder and replace
wood constructed columns which failed due to exposure to elements and freezing and thawing to a more durable
composite material.”
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT:
Applicant seeks approval for the following four project components:
1. Reduction in the overall size of the wrap-around porch on the south and east faces of the structure. The
main entrance porch and the porte-cochère porch have been built.
a. Historic Precedent:
The 1932 Assessor Card for the property indicates that the original porch did not extend across the
entire front façade, nor did it connect to the porte-cochère. Evidence that the wrap-around porch
may have been added a later date were first encountered by Staff at a follow-up site visit in summer
/ fall 2018, where the deconstructed porch unveiled windows to the basement.
b. Configuration / Constitution:
The reconstructed entrance portico and porte-cochère are clad in red brick (as the entire porch had
been before). The removed porch unveiled ‘yellow’ brick as the primary construction medium for
the main structure. It is the intention of the property owner to keep this brick, as-is. This will
result in two distinct colors of bricks being visible on the front façade of the structure.
The overall cost of reconstructing the porch in the most recent configuration should be noted.
Reducing the overall size of the porch allows the property owner to address other (potentially more
pressing) maintenance concerns.
Staff supports the reduction in size of the porch. Staff would prefer to see either the yellow
or the red brick used continuously across the entirety of the structure.
2. Elimination / Removal of the Port-cochere stairs.
a. Historical Context:
The porte-cochère originally allowed for a covered area for visitors to arrive at the house under
cover from the elements. The steps that were previously installed in the porte-cochère were
narrow, on the face of the porch wall, rising to the north, and staff believes these steps were not the
original steps to enter the house from the porte-cochère. Staff is of the opinion that the screened-in
porch portion was originally constructed with a smaller footprint, and was changed sometime prior
to 1950 (as evidenced by the 1932 Assessor Card cubed representation).
Porte-cochère projects that the Commission has reviewed recently include the Kizer House, where
most recently the Commission allowed the porte-cochère stairs to be removed to allowed for
additional construction projects and more thoughtful use of the existing space.
b. Configuration / Constitution:
The removal of the steps will allow for the the porte-cochère to be safely used as a pass-through
for automobiles to the rear of the house (currently cars drive around the porte-cochère). The
screened-in porch is still serviced by a larger stair on the north side of the porch area.
Staff supports the removal of porte-cochère stairs.
3. Reduction in the number of columns on the front porch from four to two.
a. Historical Context:
Columns, composed of the base, shaft, and capital, are categorized in five orders: Doric, Ionic,
Tuscan, Corinthian, and Composite. The latter two are the most ornate of the orders.
Four stately homes along West North Shore have grand entrance porticos with colossal orders
(columns taller than one story):
i. 107 West North Shore, with two Composite* columns; (* Composite columns are an
elaboration of the Corinthian style with the addition of the volutes of the Ionic columns)
ii. 127 W North Shore, with 6 Ionic columns (four facing the street) and pilasters along each
exterior facade;
iii. 201 W North Shore with 4 Corinthian columns and two pilasters;
iv. 325 W North Shore, with six Ionic columns (four facing the street) on the front porch
The applicant’s house is the only structure in the neighborhood with Corinthian columns. Three of
the above listed examples have four columns facing the street, and these three structures are similar
in appearance and architectural constitution.
b. Configuration / Constitution:
The two columns at the corners of the portico were load-bearing. The internal columns were
cosmetic, adding to the stately appearance of the house. The columns (and pilasters) have fluted
shafts. The capitals are Corinthian, with acanthi and volutes.
The reconstruction cost is believed to be in excess of $5,000 per column. The reduction in the
number of columns will result in a considerable cost-savings for the applicant (in excess of
$10,000).
Staff does not support the reduction in the number of columns.
4. Change the material Construction of the Columns
a. Historic Context:
The existing columns were originally constructed from multiple materials. The 2018 application to
repair / rebuild the front porch was predicated on the deteriorated condition of the columns (base,
shaft, and capital). The shafts were constructed from wood, barreled around an internal cavity.
New load-bearing beams have been installed at the corners, it was the hope of the applicant that the
barreled columns could be rehabilitated and reinstalled.
The 2018 project approval remanded to staff “decisions where contingencies exist or any decisions
that need to be acted upon with urgency, including the replacement and reconstruction of the
Corinthian columns and piers..”
b. Configuration / Constitution:
The applicant would like to transition from the original materials to fiberglass reinforced polymer
examples. The applicant has requested to remove the fluting from the columns.
Staff supports the use of alternative materials if they replicate the original details of the
Corinthian columns and pilasters. Staff does not support a ‘regression’ in the style of the
columns (i.e., the loss of the fluting on the shaft of the column, or the installation of a less
ornate capital order).
SITE VISIT REPORT:
Staff visited the property repeatedly over the course of the last calendar year (March, August, September, of 2018,
as well as January, March, and June of 2019) to monitor progress on the project. On June 27, 2019 Inspector
Szaday and Specialist Toering met with a representative (Jo Broden) of the property owners at the residence and
discussed developments and circumstances of the project. The representative of the property owner expressed
frustrations with the concrete contractor and the overall cost and progress of the project. The installation of the
front steps was not to her satisfaction.
The front porch is poured, and the steps have been installed. Hershberger Masonry is working on finishing the
exterior brick of this portion of the project. Steel beams are installed at the corners to support the porch roof.
STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES:
I. BASIC STRUCTURAL MATERIALS AND ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES
Preferred: Retain and maintain the original exterior building material.
Frame Structures: Repair, repaint, and / or clean siding to deter deterioration.
Masonry Structures: Tuckpoint brick and stone, repair stucco and repaint trim, stucco and brick (if painted) to deter deterioration. Retain and
maintain architectural detail of structures such as wrought iron, tile, brackets, etc., or replace when necessary with similar material in texture,
size and appearance.
Permitted: If vinyl or aluminum siding is the only economic solution to a deteriorating frame house, architectural detail must be visually
preserved. The siding used should match the original in style, width, and lap as closely as possible.
Prohibited: Do not use asbestos or asphalt siding on frame structures. Do not use artificial brick or cast stone siding on brick, masonry,
stucco, or frame structures. Do not sandblast or use harsh detergents in cleaning brick, masonry or stucco.
II. STRUCTURES
A. ROOFS
Preferred: Keep the original shape of the roof. Retain the original roofing material. A special effort should be made to do this when the
roof in question is of tile, slate, or some other unique material not usually found today. Preserve or replace all architectural features which
give the roof its character, such as dormer windows, cupolas, cornices, brackets, chimneys, cresting, weathervanes, and special eaves.
Permitted: When necessary to replace roofing material, match the original as closely as possible in size, shape and texture.
Prohibited: Do not add, remove, or alter features which will change its character or the architectural character of the house.
C. PORCHES AND STEPS WHICH ARE READILY VISIBLE FROM THE STREET
Preferred: Retain and maintain porches and steps including hand rails, balusters, columns, brackets, roof decoration, tile, and brick. If
porches and / or steps are enclosed for heat conservation or other reasons, it should be done in a manner that does not destroy the
architectural nor historical character of the home.
Permitted: Replace porches and steps with materials matching the original as closely as possible. A cement porch floor is permitted for the
structure on Lot 12.
Prohibited: Porches and steps that are appropriate to the style of the house shall not be removed.0
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff divides the project into four components:
1. Staff supports the reduction in size of the porch. Staff would prefer to see either the yellow or the red
brick used continuously across the entirety of the structure.
2. Staff supports the removal of the porte-cochère stairs.
3. Staff does not support the reduction in the number of columns.
4. Staff supports the use of alternative materials if they replicate the original details of the
Corinthian columns and pilasters. Staff does not support a ‘regression’ in the style of the
columns (i.e., the loss of the fluting on the shaft of the column, or the installation of a less
ornate capital order.)
Written by
Adam Toering
Historic Preservation Specialist
Approved by
Elicia Feasel
Historic Preservation Administrator
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
OF SOUTH BEND AND ST. JOSEPH COUNTY
Phone: 574/235.9371 Fax: 574/235.9021 Email: hpcsbsjc@southbendin.gov
LOCATION MAP - Map showing location of the property and surrounding area (Google Maps)
AERIEL MAP - highlighted property on map
1917 Sanborn 1945 Sanborn 1960 Sanborn MACOG 2019
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
OF SOUTH BEND AND ST. JOSEPH COUNTY
Phone: 574/235.9371 Fax: 574/235.9021 Email: hpcsbsjc@southbendin.gov
1932 Assessor Card - 201 W North Shore.
1932 Assessor Card - 201 W Northshore - Different color indicates different assessment year.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
OF SOUTH BEND AND ST. JOSEPH COUNTY
Phone: 574/235.9371 Fax: 574/235.9021 Email: hpcsbsjc@southbendin.gov
FRONT PICTURE (SOUTH) - Picture taken in 2013.
FRONT PICTURE (SOUTH) - Picture of the front portico, current.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
OF SOUTH BEND AND ST. JOSEPH COUNTY
Phone: 574/235.9371 Fax: 574/235.9021 Email: hpcsbsjc@southbendin.gov
PROJECT AREA - Front porch, yellow foundation brick is visible. Early June, 2019.
PROJECT AREA - Front porch, yellow and red brick visible. June 27, 2019.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
OF SOUTH BEND AND ST. JOSEPH COUNTY
Phone: 574/235.9371 Fax: 574/235.9021 Email: hpcsbsjc@southbendin.gov
PROJECT AREA - Front portico, showing fluting on both columns and pilaster (behind). June, 2016.
PROJECT AREA - Front portico, showing steps and column bases. June, 2016.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
OF SOUTH BEND AND ST. JOSEPH COUNTY
Phone: 574/235.9371 Fax: 574/235.9021 Email: hpcsbsjc@southbendin.gov
PROJECT AREA: Porte-cochère, showing the steps as previously installed. March, 2018 file photo.
PROJECT AREA - Porte-cochère, basement window as revealed during deconstruction. August, 2018
TO: Historic Preservation Commission
RE: 201 W. North Shore Drive (main house)
& 199 W. North Shore Drive (Carriage House)
Owners: Thomas F. Broden (95 years old) and Joanne Broden (96 years old)
Caretakers/Caregivers: John E. Broden (Power of Attorney) and Jo M. Broden
1. Elimination of the Port Cochere Stairs. It is our strong preference that we not rebuild the stairs
that extended off of the east side of the side porch of the house for the following reasons:
a. The stairs performed no modern day function whatsoever. While quaint and unique,
the stairs had long ceased to perform any utilitarian function. They were constructed
solely and exclusively for people to dismount from a horse drawn carriage on to the side
porch.
b. The stairs as they existed did not meet modern day building codes for rise, tread and for
handrails. Further, to reconstruct the stairs to meet modern day code, they would be
too wide and would extend even more into the driveway thus rendering the driveway
useless to any size automobile and impinge the ingress and egress of automobiles.
c. The driveway would be improved and be more functional if we were authorized not to
reconstruct these stairs.
d. There is another set of stairs that face south that allow for access to the side porch and
do meet code standards. These stairs have been part of the side porch structure since
at least 1970 when my parents moved into the house. Historic preservation may have
additional information as to when these south stairs were constructed.
2. Reduction in Size of the Overall Porch—principally seeking the elimination of the porch flats
that serve as a wrap-around/connector walkway. We are asking for permission not to rebuild
this wraparound brick wall and walkway that largely connected the front entry porch top and
stairs to the side porch for the following reasons:
a. Per the 1932 Assessor card for the property, this wraparound walkway was not original
to the house.
b. The cost to rebuild this walkway is prohibitive at this point in time and serves no
utilitarian function as there is access to the side porch and house from the south stairs.
c. We have concerns about replacing this brick wraparound porch from a structural
standpoint. This wraparound porch walkway was one of the principal causes of the
overall porch failure.
d. In looking at the homes in the West North Shore Historic District, no other home has
such a wraparound walkway. There are homes with similar columns and pillars and
similar brick/limestone capped sidewalls, but no home features anything that remotely
resembles this massive, non-utilitarian wraparound walkway.
3. Replace the Wood Base, Columns and Capitals with a Fiberglass Reinforced Polymer. We
would like to utilize longer lasting, low maintenance composite column structures rather than
wood which was formally used for the following reasons:
a. After years and years of exposure to the elements—rain, moisture, freezing and
thawing, and pests, the original structures failed and could not be repaired nor salvaged.
At inception of this entire routine maintenance project, we had hoped that 2 of the 4
columns and the capitals could be salvaged and re-used. This was not the case—all 4
structures were lost.
b. While overall the structures lasted a long time, the wood columns required costly
maintenance and repair over the years.
c. Using modern day composite materials would save money, but also would be identical
aesthetically to the original column structures.
d. Using modern day composite materials would last longer and maintain their structural
integrity better, and require less maintenance over time.
4. Replacement Reduction from Four Front Porch Columns to Two Columns. We are asking to
reduce the replacement of columns on the front porch from four columns to two columns for
the following reasons:
a. We have been advised by a structural engineer that the two “outer” columns are the
load bearing columns that support the porch. The “inner” two columns perform no
function structurally. These inner columns would be the ones we would not replace at
this time.
b. The laminated structural beams that comprise the interior of the 2 outer posts
sufficiently support the porch roof and peak. The fiberglass reinforced polymer (FRP)
column and capitals, if approved, would wrap around this beam only (not provide
structural support).
c. The “inner” non-functional columns could be added at a later date, but at present time
they are cost prohibitive for the owners and detract from the owners’ ability to finish
this project and also detract from their ability to address much more needed, higher-
priority repairs (see below). Four 24” columns with Roman Corinthian Caps and Tuscan
Base cost over $23,100 (per 3/1/2018 pricing). The 3 replacement columns for the side
porch total an additional $1725. These estimates do not include scaffolding, installation
labor, nor lift equipment costs if needed.
d. Phasing- in the replacements is possible and can be easily done at a later date. No
construction challenges should be posed (in fact, it could be expedited if same
contractor is available). The porch top and step wings have been constructed to “allow”
for a later installation. Aesthetically, it will be easy to mask and repair where the posts
connected formally.
e. Single columns at the front entry “mimics” the single pilasters in both height, width and
detail—these are on the house adjacent to the main door entry (1 per side).
f. Single columns at the front entry also “match“ the other 5 single columns (two at port
cochere and 3 on side entry porch).
g. Column and pilaster variations exist throughout the district.
h. Two columns align in scale with the overall reduced porch footprint.
i. Two columns versus four greatly enhances the views of the river and historic Leeper
Park from the interior of the house. The space on the 2nd floor behind the Juliet balcony
is, in fact, a sitting room. The 1st floor is a grand entry way with side transom windows
on both sides and opens into a large foyer and grand staircase behind. Additional
lighting enhances the stain glass windows that are the main feature of the grand stair
landing.
Granting the Above Requests Will Allow Other Critical Needs to be Prioritized and Addressed at the
Property:
1. There are leaks in and around the chimney at 201 W. North Shore Dr.
2. Roof work needs to be done at both 201 W. North Shore Dr. and 199 W. North
Shore Dr. In fact, roof tear off and replacement, roof cupola and gutter repair at
199 W. North Shore Dr. are urgent projects.
3. Basement Stair Entry Wash Out repaired.
4. Paint soffits and carriage house.
5. Price quotes for the above mentioned repairs have been obtained with the
exception of the roof cupola work and these quotes are available for inspection
upon request.
Since December 2016, other significant work has been done at 201 W. North Shore Dr. and/or 199 W.
North Shore which includes the following:
1. A complete rewiring of the house at 201 W. North Shore Dr. taking the home
from 50 amp service to 200 amp throughout all three floors of the home and
basement. This project alone cost approximately $60,000. Wiring did not
meet code and numerous fire hazards were addressed via this electrical
upgrade.
2. Emergency repair of 3 stories of plumbing on the east side of the house at 201
W. North Shore Dr. In December of 2016, during porch ceiling construction
work, a pipe froze and burst on the first floor of the east side of the home. In
fixing this piping, Bob Frame advised that they had been warning the owners
for years that the piping was antiquated and in need of replacement. Bob
Frame undertook a project of replacing the vast majority of the piping on the
east side of the home. This project cost $30,000. (Note: The west side of the
home (inclusive of the kitchen, butler pantry sink, second story jack n jill
bathroom, and basement laundry and utility sink were not part of this piping
upgrade).
3. Soffit, flat side porch roof (port cochere) and gutter repair at both 201 W.
North Shore and 199 W. North Shore. These projects cost $20,000.
As caretakers of this historic property, our primary goals have been to stabilize this asset and allow the
owners, our aging parents/in-laws, to remain in the adjacent carriage house and receive quality,
affordable caregiving services for their 24 hour needs. Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Respectfully submitted, John E. Broden and Jo M. Broden
From:
To:Adam Toering
Subject:Fwd: Invoice: Engineered Column Post / Installed 12-4-2018
Date:Tuesday, July 9, 2019 11:39:51 AM
Dear Adam,
Please black out price info and email contacts from this. Thank you.
Jo
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Jeffrey Molnar <>
Date: Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 9:21 AMSubject: Invoice: Engineered Column Post / Installed 12-4-2018
To: Josephine Broden <>CC: Jeffrey Molnar <>
Per Engineer Rick Keller’s Directions to install two 5.25” x 5.25” Engineered Column Postsfor structural to the front porch on Broden’s Project. Then put in place nonstructural
Decorated Columns at a later date.
Detail of Invoice:
- Engineers Specifications
-Ordering and Shipping Engineered Columns (WV)- Erecting Work Platforms
- Man Power (no machine used)- Anchoring (Redheads Hardware)
- Weather Proofing Rap- Remove all work platforms and Structural Beams on 12-5-2018 (weather permitting)
Total Due
Thank you
Jeff Molnar
-- Jo (Maternowski) Broden