HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 1992CERTIF,ICATE___GFAPPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT.
PROPERTY -- 1067 Riverside Drive
South Bend, IN 46616
OWNERS -- Roman Sysyn
DESIGNATION -- Riverside Drive LHD
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE/HISTORIC CONTEXT
1067 Riverside Dr. is in the Riverside Drive Local Historic District. 1067
was rated as a non-contributing structure on the Indiana Historic Sites and
Structures Inventory during a 1985 survey, however, the current staff has
re-evaluated the property and feels that the structure is worthy of a
contributing(C/9) rating. This American Foursquare house was built in
1908, and its first resident was attorney Louis M. Hammerschmidt of Deahl
and Hammerschmidt Attys. Mr. Roman Sysyn has been the owner of 1067
Riverside Dr. since 1973.
PROPOSED CHANGE
Construction of a concrete retaining wall at the northwest corner of the
property's front yard with the dimensions of 8' x 4' x 8' in length,
approximately 18" in height, and approximately 6" in width. As part of
this project two portions of a concrete sidewalk at the rear of the
property will be repaired in kind.
STANDARDS
District standards (1,A,1) state the introduction of new site elements such
as "new plant materials, fencing, walkways, streetlights, signs, and
benches shall be compatible in size, scale, material, and color."
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that the HPC approve this proposal. The proposed section
of retaining wall matches in dimensions, materials, and color an existing
retaining wall already bordering the remainder of the front yard area, and
is compatible in scale with the property and area's environment.
A. Kotzbauer
11-10-92
1067 Riverside Drive
COA# 1992-1106
10�7
WAu At7D1'Ttor4
I J -`�ST4 iL(E
t"
k
Y i
t
1
( carac�£
t
I
1
yf--C3tntNUN'L ASCI=.
ALLF,Y
1067 Riverside Drive
COA:; 1992-1 106
view of front yard retaining wall view of front yard retaining; wall
from the northwest with new section from the northeast with new section
on the right side of photo on the right side of photo
repaired back yard concrete sidewalk
c•�`}tea 1. � � '
y
r� 1{
tARM
nt eu
_
;,
sf
lz j�
a
c•�`}tea 1. � � '
y
r� 1{
tt,00
,r
T
IANn
;,
sf
lz j�
T
IANn
'N
r71C•f!
,
1606 West Ewing Avenue
Proposed Local Historic Landmark
Nr
Imm
: bp
KID
a;
-SOUTH B
':4
: 41
historicpreservation commission
of south bend and st. joseph county
ROOM 1123 COUNTY CITY BUILDING
south bend, indiana 46601 (219) 284-9798
AGENDA OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Regular Monthly Meeting County Conference Room
7:30 p.m. 7th Floor, County/City Building
November 16, 1992
I. Call to Order
II. Roll Call
III. Public Hearing
A. Certificates of Appropriateness
1. 1067 Riverside Drive -- Riverside Drive LHD
B. 1606 West Ewing Avenue -- Second Reading
C. James Madison School --.Second Reading
IV. Regular Business
A. Approval of Minutes -- October, 1992
B. Treasurer's Report -- October, 1992
C. Correspondence
D. Committee Reports
1. C of A (Staff Approvals)
a. 549 Edgewater Drive -- Edgewater Place LHD
2. Budget and Finance
3. Legal
4. Historic Districts
5. Historic Landmarks
6. Standards and Maintenance
7. Personnel
8. Staff Reports
V. Old Business
VI. New Business
VII. Hearing of Visitors
VIII. Announcements & Miscellaneous Matters
IX. Adjournment
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
COMMISSION MEETING VISITOR ROLL
November 1992
Visitors: Please fill in your name and organization (if
applicable) so your presence can be officially recorded for the
Commission's records. Thank you.
f 21
2 �a�l�h 22
3 &,,� • ��i1. �uACh�. k Ff D 23
4 Mi/ct KC S+-' diva¢ 'N� CNo 24
5 I .GZ� 25
6 26
7
27
8
28
9
29
10
30
11
31
12
32
13
33
14
34
15
35
16
36
17
37
18
38
19
39
20
40
FA
Staff Report:
Proposed Local Historic Landmark Designation
for 1606 West Ewing Avenue
The Historic Pre -servation Commission has been asked by the owners of
property at 1606 West Ewing Avenue to consider recommending their house and
grounds to the South' Bend Common Council for designation by ordinance as a
Local Historic Landmark. The owners are Dorothy and Stanley Skowronek.
The staff has evaluated the property according to HPC Local Landmark
Procedures, has researched the history of the structure and has visited the
site in order to assess its architectural qualities.
Recommendation
It is the staff's opinion that this structure does not meet the necessary
criteria forLocalHistoric landmark status; it is recommended that the HPC
not send this property to the Common Council for historic designation -11-1
HPC criteria for designationrequires that a property be rated as a S111 or
higher on the City Survey (if rated lower, it should be reevaluated to
determine whether or not it merits a higher rating) and be evaluated with
respect to:
1. its "character, interest, or value as part of [local, state or national]
development, heritage or culture";
o. its "embodiment of elements of architectural design, detail, materials,
--nr craftsmanship which represent an architectural characteristic or
innovation";
3. its educational value;
4. its suitability for preservation;
5. its location as a site or a significant historical event; and/or
6. its identification with the life of a person or persons of historical
,significance.
Discussion
1606 West Ewing is located on the southwest corner of Ewing Avenue and
Gertrude Street on the southwest side of the city. The structure was rated
as an Significant (Sill) on the original City Survey; it is currently rated
as Contributing (C/10) due to major alterations. Staff evaluation concurs
with the lower rating. The house is an American Foursquare in form, built
circa 1901. The structure has several features that are characteristic of
Queen Anne details that are now being called "Free -Classic" by many
scholars.[2] These features include slender, clustered, Tuscan columns
supporting the front porch roof and a molded lintel with dentil course on
the same.
The structure as originally built remains, however, a fairly basic
Foursquare; many unaltered examples can be found in South Bend and
*hroughout the county. Alterations include: 1. rear porch enclosed in 1957
nd encased in perma-stone and aluminum -framed windows; 2. roof dormers
-encased in synthetic siding; 3. soffits encased in synthetic siding, entire
1
structure; 4. all storms replaced with aluminum; 5—rear, second -story and
one west side window removed and replaced with glass blocks; 6. no original
outbuildings remain, a contemporary hipped -roof (c.1955) sits immediately
behind the main structure.
American Foursquares are a very common structure in South Bend. In order
for such a structure to merit landmark status architecturally, it seems
reasonable that -it should be exemplary -- in unaltered condition -- in
order to be a representative of its type. This structure does not fulfill
that criteria. In addition, it is neither an unusual nor an innovative
architectural example.
The structure also fails to meet historical criteria. The structure was not
the site of a significant historical event. It is not associated with the
life of a person or persons significant in history, locally or otherwise
(please see the house history included below). It is in no way a
significant representative example of the area's development, culture -or
heritage; its educational value is therefore minimal at best.
It could be argued that 1606 East Ewing is "suitable for preservation."
This is a lovely residence owned by people who exhibit justifiable pride
in, and concern for, their home. They should be encouraged to continue
caring for the structure and refurbishing it as they are currently doing.
The criteria of suitability fits sixty percent of the building stock in the
county. The HPC does not have the necessary staff to administer Local
Landmark status for every "older" home in the county, nor does it seem
practical to recommend to local government bodies more structures than can
be conceivably be handled. The HPC should only recommend those structures
that meet several designation criteria, in addition to being merely
'suitable;" historic designation should remain as a tool for the
reservation of demonstrably significant structures.
F. Holycross
November, 1992
The Fisher House -- 1606 West Ewing Avenue
Historical Development
This American Foursquare house was constructed circa 1901. The property
(Lot 2 in the Rum Village Heights Addition) was platted by Whitcomb and
Keller in 1941. The property originally was part of an eighty acre farm
owned by Adam Fisher; it can be found on the Portage Township map in
Higgin's Historical Atlas of St. Joseph Countv (1875). Adam Fisher
purchased this property in 1854 and had a farm house built on the site. He
resided here with his wife, Hannah Fisher, and their family until his
demise on the thirtieth day of July, 1894, at which time Hannah became the
sole executrix and owner of the estate. Little biographical evidence
remains concerning the lives of these people, a common problem in
researching the lives of farmers and laborers.
n September 25, 1896 Daniel Fisher and Cora B. Fisher (husband and wife)
nd Hannah Fisher (widow) transferred the property to Frank Fisher. On
anuary 29, 1901 Frank Fisher mortgaged the real estate to Ellen Ponto for
a sum of $3000.00 in order to have the present structure built. It is
2
unknown what type of house and outbuildings were previously located here.
Since the property was originally located outside the city limits, the St.
Joseph County Directories listed the address as "Section 22, Portage Tp."
between 1900 and 1910. By 1912 the City Directory included the address as
1802 West Ewing, with Frank Fisher, a farmer, listed as occupant. Although
Frank and Emma Fisher owned the property till 1940, they only lived there
through the mid 1920s, after which they moved to South Haven, Michigan.
According to the city directories, between 1926 and 1940 the property was
used as a rental. In 1926 the house was occupied by Grant McCready and his
wife, Mae. McCready was a contractor by profession. Between 1930 and 1940
the house was rented to two couples: 011ie and E. L. Smith and William and
Sylvia Alexander. Both E.L. Smith and William Alexander were listed as
"laborers" in the directory.
On May 28, 1940 Frank and Emma Fisher transferred the property to Minnie R.
Ninke of South Haven, Michigan, except for a tract of land containing forty
acres, more or less, taken off of the entire width of the south end of the
original farm.
According to the City Directory, by 1945 Ethel and Jakob Cavich were
renting the house. By this time the address was changed to 1606 West Ewing.
They became the owners in July of 1945.
The Cavich's owned the property till 1950. Jakob Cavich was a grocer with a
store at 901 West Indiana Avenue. He was born on December 26, 1890 in
Botchka, Yugoslavia and came to South Bend in 1923 from.Peoria, Illinois.
On July 15, 1914 he married Ethel Somogye. Ethel Cavich was born on
September 8, 1883 in Austria-Hungary. She came to South Bend in 1927, also
from Peoria. They had a son, Jack Cavich Junior. Jakob Cavich was a member
of the Serbian National Federation Lodge 174, the German Club, D.F.V. and
the William Penn Association. Mrs. Cavich was a member of the Saints Peter
and Paul Serbian Sister Circle.
In 1951 the property was transferred to Michael and Anna Bokon. According
to Directories, between 1955-1991 the house was owned by Frank J. and Helen
Sabo. Frank Sabo was employed as a janitor with the Studebaker firm; Helen
was a secretary at the William Penn Fraternal Association. On July 22, 1991
the property was transferred to Dorothy and Stanley Skowronek. The
Skowroneks are the current owners.[3]
Dr. Sushmita Hodges
November, 1992
Notes
1. Preservation Plan for the City of South Bend (HPC publication)-, 15.
2. Virginia and Lee McAlester A Field Guide to American Houses (New York:
1990).
3. St. Joseph County Directories (CRIMP: microfilm, 1902-1906); South Bend
City Directories (1908-1990); Portage Township Assessor Reports: (1932 and
1991); St. Joseph County Plat Book 15 (R-3); St. Joseph County Deed Records
102:315; 323:408; 336:608; 370:628; 492:331; St. Joseph County Mortgage
Record 85:211; An Illustrated Historical Atlas of St. Joseph County
Indiana, ,(Chicago: Higgins Belden and Company, 1875),31; South Bend Tribune
(7-30-1894), obit; (12-11-68), obit; (8-6-65), obit; (8-7-65).
3
Staff Report:
Proposed Local Historic Landmark Desienation
for James Madison School
The staff has been asked to assess James Madison School, 804 North
Lafayette for possible Local Historic Landmark designation. At the November
16, 1992 monthly meeting, the HPC will consider whether to recommend the
structure for such designation to the South Bend Common Council. The
property is owned by the South Bend Community School Corporation and is
located just south of Leeper Park and one block west of Michigan Street.
The staff has evaluated the property according to HPC Local Landmark
criteria, has researched the history of the structure and property, and has
visited the site in order to assess its architectural significance.
Recommendation
It is the staff's opinion that this structure meets the necessary criteria
for Local Historic Landmark status; it is recommended that the HPC send a
favorable recommendation to the South Bend Common Council for historic
designation of this property by ordinance.
HPC criteria for recommendation requires that a property be rated as a S/11
(Significant) or higher on the Indiana Sites and Structure Inventory (City
Survey) and be evaluated with respect to:
1. its "character, interest, or value as part of [local, state, or
national] development, heritage or culture";
2. its "embodiment of elements of architectural design, detail, materials,
or craftsmanship which represent an architectural characteristic or
innovation";
3. its "educational value";
4. its "suitability for preservation";
5. its location as a site of a significant historical event; and/or
6. its identification with the life of a person or persons of historical
significance.[l]
Discussion
James Madison School is both historically and architecturally significant.
It is rated as an Significant (S/11) on the City Survey. It is also a
contributing structure within the Chapin Park National Register Historic
District. The school's historical role as a place of education is its most
obvious historical/ developmental characteristic. It is the third school
structure built to accommodate the education of children in this section of
the city. The community constructed many fine educational structures during
the 1920s to accommodate growing numbers of students and to provide the
most modern school facilities possible. Madison joined the ranks of South
Bend's exceptional educational facilities in 1929.
=he school is a fine example of the city's expansion and modernization of
educational facilities in the early years of the twentieth century, a
process that was also taking place throughout the country in this period.
Madison School thus remains as an important example of the social and
1
cultural development of South Bend, fulfilling the criteria of having
"value as part of [local and national] development."
Madison is an excellent example of what is now commonly called the
Collegiate Gothic style, a style commonly used in public buildings of this
period. In addition, it was designed by two of the region's most
significant architects -- Ennis R. Austin and Norman Roy Shambleau.
Madison School is also a significant for its place in the built -environment
and on the landscape of its immediate neighborhood. Its size and placement
adjacent to Leeper Park make its an important focal point for the
neighborhood. Its demolition -- or defacement of its historical facade --
would do irreparable harm to the general environment, or subjective "feel,"
of the neighborhood. the structure provides an element of grace and beauty
that would not be easily replaced.
Madison School is deserving of protection and preservation. It is a
structure that was constructed of substantial materials, was intended to be
an up-to-date educational facility and was designed with a high regard for
aesthetics.
The building is now in use and could easily remain useful into the future;
landmark designation would in no way impede its continuing utility to the
community but would ensure that its most significant architectural element
-- its historical facade -- would remain s an attractive element of the
landscape.
Architectural Assessment
The Collegiate Gothic style is now sometimes referred to as Twentieth
Century Gothic Revival. This substyle is a descendent of eighteenth and
nineteenth-century.Gothic Revival architecture that was itself inspired by
the Romantic movement which sought to evoke the "superiority" of the
Christian medieval past. This style was most often employed in public
architecture including schools, libraries and churches.
Vertical expression is the key factor in Gothic -inspired architectural
forms. The design of Madison School expresses verticality in its tall,
slender windows and openings; vertical structural articulation in the form
of attached wall piers, capped with cut stone and carved details, that _.
resemble the buttresses of Gothic cathedral architecture from the twelfth
to fifteenth centuries; and the use in many of its exterior details of the
pointed, or Gothic, arch form, the most characteristic of Gothic details.
Entrances are articulated with flattened Gothic arch openings with cut
stone details and Gothic -inspired moldings. The diamond shape, related to
the Gothic arch form, is present in the window glazing and brick patterns.
Several window groupings retain the original leaded diamond -pane,
double -hung sashes. Others consist of four -over -six pane, double -hung wood -
replacement windows, probably historic improvements.
he school also shows evidence of another•substyle of the Gothic mode --
he Polychrome variation. This can be seen in the introduction of a brick
attern variation on the structure's northwest corner, a tower -like
projection. Here the employment of darker brick creates a reoccurring
diamond pattern, typical to a substyle wherein contrasting colors, textures
and patterns of brick were incorporated into wall surfaces.
2
Madison also exhibits -,features reminiscent of medieval castle or fortress
building traditions as opposed to cathedral architecture. Thick lower walls
between the foundation and window sill -line string -course resemble the
battered walls of a medieval fortress. Architectural elements such as the
castellated parapet, tower -like corner projections and heavy batten doors
further reiterate the fortress -inspired building form of this fine example
of the popular Collegiate Gothic style.
Historic Development
The origins of the James Madison school may be traced to 1863 when the
"Goose Pasture School" was built. Significant numbers of German immigrants
began settling South Bend in the 1850s; in subsequent decades they
congregated in the northern section of town. Many raised flocks of geese
for food, feathers and "goose grease." The territory consequently became
known as "Goose Pasture." The first school constructed in this area to
accommodate the children of these immigrants derived its name from this
fact.
This original school was built in 1864 and was located at the intersection
of Lafayette and Madison Streets. Between 1864 and 1892 it functioned much
like a rural, four -room school house. It was built of yellow brick and was
two stories high with two school rooms on each floor. The locally prominent
citizen and historian, Otto Knoblock, attended this original school. Later
in life he maintained a "black memorandum book" in which he recorded the
names of individuals who attended the Goose Pasture School from 1864-1880.
The list reveals that many children of early pioneer, north -side families
attended the school.
With the expanding settlement around the area, and growing demands for the
education of young people, the "old Madison School" building was replaced
by a larger building in 1893. This building was constructed of red brick
with stone trimmings and slate roof. The cost involved was approximately
$25,000.00. It was abandoned as a school in 1929 and for some years served
as a food distribution center for the Portage Township Trustee before being
razed.
At the end of 1925 the Board of Education saw the necessity of a new school
to supplant the "second Madison School" building. After months of intensive
study the Board decided that the old site and structure had become
inadequate and was obsolete for the growing needs of the north side.
The Board of Education hired planning expert, E. D. Cline, to provide
recommendations. Following an exhaustive survey, he endorsed the following
site: "three quarters of a block bounded by North Lafayette Boulevard on
the west, West Foote street on the north, Main Street on the east and West
Bartlett street on the south. Leeper Park is opposite to the site on the
north and the west." On this site the Board agreed to build the new Madison
School.
Madison School was constructed of brick with stone trim and was completed
late in 1929 at a cost of approximately $275,000.00. Initially the
structure was to be used as a combination elementary and junior high
school, designed to accommodate 840 students. It was intended to replace
the old Madison and Foster schools and to relieve congestion at the Muessel
School. The Board of Education decided that sufficient funds -were not
available for such a large structure and only the elementary portion of the
3
building was constructed.
The assigned architects, Austin and Shambleau, submitted two architectural
designs to the Board of Education. These included both Colonial and
English -styled plans; the Board favored the latter -- the Collegiate Gothic
(English) style, at the time quite popular among American school
architects. The choice of the Gothic style necessitated a name change. The
Board had originally planned to call the school "Thomas Jefferson," but
decided that a Jefferson school should only be built in the Colonial style
and changed the name to Madison.
The final contract for the proposed Madison Junior High School was awarded
in the latter part of August, 1928. The construction contract was awarded
to the lowest bidder, H.G. Christman & Company at $195,099.00. Heating and
ventilating contracts were awarded to William H. Burke, who submitted a
base bid of $37,021.00. Charles M. Oberlin was awarded the contract for
plumbing on the strength of his low base bid of $22,198.00. The electrical
work went to the MacGregor Electric Service Company.
The new building was occupied by February, 1930. Besides the 525 pupils
enrolled in the old Madison School, the new building accommodated 167
students transferred from the temporary school on Foster Avenue in Harter
Heights. Total enrollment of the new school was approximately 700 pupils.
In addition to students the entire teaching staff of the old Madison school
were transferred to the new building. The new staff included a total of 25
teachers. In the new structure a change was made from the traditional type
of school to the "platoon system." Madison was the fifth school in the city
to adopt such a program. This was an arrangement whereby the students
passed from room to room for various subjects. For the first four years of
its existence only the first six grades were taught in the school.[2]
The Architects
Ennis R. Austin and Norman Roy Shambleau were partners in the firm of
Austin and Shambleau, one of South Bend's most important architectural
businesses during the first half of the twentieth century. Austin was born
in Owasco, N.Y. and entered Cornell University in 1882. He graduated in
1886 with a degree in architecture. His early experience was gained in the
office of LeBrun and Sons in New York, and later with Tiffany Glass and -
Decorating Company. He came to South Bend in 1892 and formed a partnership
with Wilson B. Parker under the name_ of Parker and Austin, which continued
till 1900.
He then became superintendent of construction for the U.S. Treasury
Department in which capacity he directed the construction of post office
buildings in Indiana, Illinois and Michigan. He resigned his commission in
1906 and formed a brief partnership with Walter Schneider. In 1909 he
started the firm of Austin and Shambleau. This firm designed numerous '
buildings downtown, among the most significant of these are the Tower
Federal Building, the South Bend Tribune building, the Y.M.C.A., and the
Federal Post Office. In addition the partners also designed numerous
houses, particularly in the East Jefferson and Miami-Ridgedale areas.
Norman Roy Shambleau was born in Canada and lived in London, Ontario, until
the age of eleven. He moved with his family to South Bend and -initially
worked with Wilson B. Parker and Ernest Young, before entering into
partnership with Austin.
Shambleau's greatest contribution to local architecture was his
Prairie -inspired houses, resembling those of Frank Lloyd Wright. After 1915
the firm designed primarily Period Revival houses, schools and commercial
buildings; James Madison School was one of several local schools the firm
designed in the period. Shambleau was also director of the South Bend
Federal Savings and Loan Association for twenty-seven years.[3]
S. Hodges
F. Holycross
A. Kotzbauer
November, 1992
Sources
1. Preservation Plan for the Citv of South Bend (South Bend: Historic.
Preservation Commission, 1984): 15.
2. Knoblock, Otto M. "When South Bend Was Young" South Bend News Times
(6-16-35); South Bend News Times (1-26-30); (2-20-30); (1-10-28);
(2-22-30); (1-14-30); (11-13-28); (12-15-29).
South Bend Tribune, (12-15-25); (12-28-26); (2-16-30); (2-21-30);
(1-24-28); (8-3-28); (4-10-28); (1-24-30); (4-20-41); (5-14-41); (5-19-41);
(6-23-46).
3. Citv of South Bend: Summary Report (South,Bend: Historic Preservation
Commission, 1981): 29,33.
5
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Regular Monthly Meeting 7th Floor, County Commissioner's
7:30 p.m. Conference Room, County -City Building
October 19, 1992
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 7:36 p.m.
II. Roll Call
Members Present: Mrs. Martha Choitz, Mrs. Jean Dennen, Mr. Jed
Eide, Mr. Herb Herendeen, Mr. John Oxian, Mrs. Janeanne Petrass,
Ms. Jewel Van Dalsen, Mr. William Welsheimer Sr.
Members Absent: Mrs. Joann Sporleder
Staff Present: Fred Holycross--Director, Amy
Kotzbauer--Administrative Assistant
Also Present: Ms. Aladean DeRose--City Attorney, Mr. Ron
Farrand, South Bend Community School Corporation
III. Public Hearing
A. Certificates of Appropriateness.
1. 1202 Lincolnway East -- Lincolnway East LHD
Mr. Holycross distributed photographs and described the
project. The property owners, Anne and Carrold Kempf, were not
present.
The owners proposed to enclose an area behind 1202 LWE, and a
lot they also own at the rear of 1208 LWE, with a four -foot (4')
tall, chain-link fence. The intention of.the fence is to stop
traffic from crossing the lots.
Mr. Holycross related that District standards prohibit the
introduction of fencing that is out of scale or inappropriate to
the neighborhood. He recommended that due to an four foot (4')
easement between the lots, the HPC, whatever its decision, not
issue a COA until the lots are replatted and the owners are
legally able to cross the lots with a fence.
He also explained that he had recommended to the owners that,
due to the ahistorical nature of the proposed fence materials,' -
they instead install a picket fence that would be characteristic
of the type of fencing that might be found in the district at
the turn of the century (the house was built in 1902). They
declined. He then suggested that they install a picket fence at
the western edge of the proposed area, the area most noticeable
from the road. They again declined.
In light of staff recommendations, the owners offered an
1
alternative: to install either of two types of Schuell brand
fences, "San Lido" or "San Fernando". Mr. Holycross further
stated that 1. the proposal does not make a permanent change to
the neighborhood; 2. historic fencing will not be removed; 3.
District standards do not specifically prohibit such a fence
from being installed, and; 4. at least one similar fence had
been previously approved in the neighborhood.
Mr. Holycross then recommended that the HPC again encourage the
owner to install an appropriate picket fence or install
appropriate fencing along the western edge of the area. If they
remain opposed, however, the above four reasons would justify
approving the proposal.
Mr. Oxian asked the purpose of this proposal, ie: why the HPC
was being asked to approve the fence before the Area Plan
Commission had approved the replatting.
Mr. Holycross replied that he felt it was a courtesy to the
owner to expedite the decision; the HPC could make a decision
based on the merits of the proposal and allow the owners to go
through with the project, if approved by the HPC and APC, before
winter. This was the reason for the suggestion that the HPC
could "provisionally" approve the plan, if appropriate, and hold
a COA until the proper authorization was had from the APC.
Mr. Bide inquired whether staff felt that either alternative
fence was appropriate; Mr. Holycross relied in the negative.
Mrs. Choitz asked for clarification as to the position of the
fence; Mr. Holycross replied that it was only at the rear as
pictured in the diagram.
Mr. Oxian said that the owners were responsible for proving
hardship if they wished to do so, and would need to provide
proof, precedent of which could be found in many other such
cases around the country.
Discussion ensued as to when and where in the District similar
fencing (San Fernando) had been approved. The matter of whether
the fence was visible was also discussed; it was agreed that the
fence was visible from both streets and from the alley.
Mrs. Choitz inquired as to the use of the land within the fenced
area; Mr. Holycross reiterated that there purpose was to stop
automobile traffic across the lots.
Mr. Oxian stated that he could not approve a chain-link fence in
the District; no others had been approved; a precedent would be
unacceptable.
Mr. Welsheimer asked for clarification as to the type of fence
previously approved; Mr. Holycross replied that "San Fernando"
had been approved previously.
Fa
Mr. Welsheimer moved to approve the installation of "San
Fernando" stvle fence as submitted. to be installed around the
entire proposed perimeter of the lots. after approval by the
Area Plan Commigsion for the subdivision of the lots. Mr. Eide
seconded the motion.
Discussion continued as to when a COA would be issued and
whether staff could approve a COA with proof of the subdivision.
It was agreed that the staff would do so.
Motion Approved unanimouslv.
B. Local Historic Landmark
1. 514 East Indiana Avenue -- Second Reading
The Second Reading for this landmark proposal was tabled in
September until Mr. Oxian, who was not present at September's
meeting, could provide additional information.
Mr. Oxian provided two reasons why he felt this site merited
designation: 1. The Studebaker Owners Club asked Mr. Oxian to
introduce the proposal because of its historic connection
with the Studebaker family; and 2. although the house has
maintenance problems and is not architecturally significant,
the interior is intact and the house's historic connection
with this significant family merits recommendation for
designation.
Mr. Oxian provided an example of a house that was in poor
condition prior to designation, the Moessel house on Cottage
Grove; the house is now in "excellent condition." He also
suggested that the Local Landmark house on E. Pennsylvania
was also a significant house that would have been "lost" if
it had not been protected by ordinance.
Mr. Oxian concluded by suggesting that maintenance concerns
had to be put aside sometimes in order to save a significant
structure.
Mrs. Choitz moved to send a favorable recommendation to the
South Bend Common Council to designated the house at 514 East
Indiana as a Local Historic Landmark. Mrs. Petrass seconded
the motion.
Mr. Welsheimer asked whether the owner was aware of HPC '
maintenance provisions. Mr. Oxian answered that she was.
Mr. Herendeen inquired as to how the maintenance problems
would be dealt with if the Common Council designated the
property since she has stated that she could not finance
maintenance costs.
3
Mr. Oxian suggested that there were others who might be able
to help with the costs; he reiterated that he felt the House
was "too significant" due to its history to ignore.
Mrs. Petrass�voiced concerns that a potential owner might not
purchase a designated property that was too expensive to
bring within HPC maintenance provisions.
Mr. Oxian suggested that the opposite might as well be true;
ie. a designated property had "historic status" that would
attract a purchaser; examples could be found in preservation
publications and elsewhere.
Discussion ensued as to potential problems that might occur
if the property was, or wasn't, designated.
Motion approved by a vote of seven to one. Mr. Welsheimer
cast the negative vote.
2. Centre Township (Van Buskirk) Cemetery -- Second Reading
Mr. Holycross read highlights from the Staff report submitted
to the HPC: the site was founded in 1838 by pioneers of
Centre Township; the site is in excellent condition and
remains as an intact collection of nineteenth-century grave
markers. The site is located within increasingly developing
areas; the staff recommended designation in order to continue
the HPC's commitment to recommending sites such as this for
historic designation and protection by ordinance.
Mr. Oxian stated that Centre Township's Trustee, Michael
McClelland, had voiced support for the designation of all
pioneer burial sites within his jurisdiction.
Mr. Eide moved to send a favorable recommendation to the St.
Joseph Countv Council to designated Center Township Cemetery
by ordinance as a Local Historic Landmark. Mr. Welsheimer
seconded the motion.
No further discussion.
Motion approved unanimouslv.
IV. Regular Business
A. Approval of Minutes
Mr. Holycross asked that the September, 1992 minutes be
approved as submitted.
Mrs. Choitz moved to approve the September minutes as submitted.
Mr. Herendeen seconded the motion. Motion approved unanimously.
B. Treasurer's Report
Mr. Holycross asked that the Treasurer's Report for
4
September, 1992 be approved as submitted.
Mrs. Choitz moved to approve the Treasurer's Report as
submitted. Mr. Welsheimer seconded the motion.
No further discussion.
Motion approved unanimouslv.
C. Correspondence
No discussion.
D. Committee Reports
1. C of A (staff approvals)
No discussion.
2. Budget and Finance
a. Grant Application, 1993-1994
Mr. Holycross presented a Staff Report explaining his
intention to apply for funding to the Department of Natural
Resources, Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology
for monies to finance projects from July 1993 to June 1994.
He asked for HPC approval to apply for monies for four
projects: 1. publish a Design Guidelines Booklet; 2. publish
a National Register/ Local Historic district brochure; 3.
continue updating City Survey computer data -base; 4. set up a
County Survey computer data -base.
Mr. Oxian suggested that the staff apply to survey brick
streets in South Bend and wooded areas and wetlands in the
county.
Mr. Holycross responded that projects such as he suggested
would require additional staff and, especially in the case of
wooded areas and wetlands, he would need to contact the state
office and inquire whether or not projects such as these
would be considered for funding; the state will only finance
specific projects that fall within a range of needs that they
perceive as being most useful for state preservation
purposes.
Mrs. Choitz suggested that information about natural
resources could be found elsewhere since other agencies are
involved with such issues and are responsible for making such
surveys.
Mr. Holycross stated that he would be concerned the present=
staff did not have the necessary expertise for such a
project. He responded that he would contact the state office
the following day to make inquiries about such projects.
Mrs.'Dennan moved to approve the application for Rrant monies
to the Division of Historic Preservation as contained in the
staff report for the mrant period 1993 to 1994..Mrs. Petrass
61
seconded the motion.
No further discussion.
Motion approved unanimously.
3. Legal
a. Legal Update
Mr. Holycross presented a Staff Report updating the various
legal issues currently being dealt with:
A. 805 Arch Avenue: owners were notified by the City Attorney
that they would be subject to litigation if they did not
comply with HPC direction to replace the rear entry canopy
removed without a GOA in 1991. A staff visit by the Director
showed that work had begun; staff felt that the issue was
moving toward cooperation and resolution.
B. 1071 Riverside Drive: a complaint was filed in Superior
Court on 9-29-92 against the owner of this property asking
for compliance with HPC directives concerning various COA
matters.
C. 619 Edawater: Staff had received a call from the
Edgewater District concerning a COA at this property from
1984 that granted permission to construct a retaining wall
along the river in front of the property; the plan included a
safety rail that had yet to be constructed. Some neighbors
were concerned about safety due to the lack of rails on the
wall.
Staff research showed that no violation existed in relation
to the wall at this time. Staff recommended that the HPC drop
the matter since there were presently no legal or safety
violations in connection with the wall and to avoid unneeded
bad publicity.
Mr. Oxian suggested that the owner should be required to
comply with the original COA in order that a precedent not be
set. He explained that he was "totally against dropping" the
matter; "others in the neighborhood would follow his
example."
Aladean DeRose suggested that the original plan was
voluntary; she thought that the matter was therefore optional
and not a requirement of the HPC. She then suggested that the
complaining party be contacted to fully explain the HPC's
opinion that this was not a requirement of the COA and does
not constitute a violation. This would show that the HPC was
not "backing down" but was following procedure.
Mr. Oxian explained the HPC had asked the owner to comply
with the original proposal to ensure that the HPC would not
be liable in the future for safety mishaps.
6
Ms. DeRose responded that he and his insurance carrier were
liable; she suggested that the case was possibly not worth
the effort, and possible litigation, required to seek
compliance.
Mr. Herendeen stated that the owner volunteered to construct
the rail and it was included in the COA; the HPC must
consider whether their credibility was at stake.
Mr. Welsheimer suggested that this was an area in which the
HPC had no jurisdiction.
Mrs. Choitz stated that she too was concerned about liability
when the COA was first considered; she wanted to be "on
record" that the HPG had considered safety when the plan was
first approved.
Mr. Eide moved that staff contact the owner to suggest that
the owner comply with the original COA as submitted to avoid
Possible liability and to contact the complainant to explain
the HPC's Position in the matter. Mr. Welsheimer seconded the
motion.
No further discussion.
The motion Passed by a vote of six to one. Mr. Oxian voted
nay. Mr. Herendeen abstained.
4. Historic Districts
No report. Mr. Oxian announced that the River Bend
Historic District proposal was scheduled to be considered by
the Common Council on the following Monday.
5. Historic Landmarks
1. 1606 West Ewing -- First Reading
The owners of this property submitted a proposal for
landmark designation to the HPC; staffwillsubmit a report
in November.
2. James Madison School, 804 N. Lafayette -- First Reading
This proposal was initiated by Mr. Oxian; staff will
submit a report in November.
6. Standards and Maintenance
a. Maintenance Update
Mr. Holycross submitted a report updating various
maintenance issues:
A. Central/ Madison Schools'-- The South Bend School
Corporation was sent a letter on 7-28-92 asking for
compliance with HPC maintenance policy after site visits by
staff and Mr. Herendeen revealed numerous problems with both
structures. Acting Superintendent Ralph Komasinski replied on
7
9-23-92 stating that repairs had taken place on both roofs
and that there was "no budget in place to support the
additional expenditures" to comply with HPC policy.
Mr. Holycross added that he felt the staff had taken the
matter as far as they could and was waiting for HPC
directions in the matter.
Mr. Oxian stated that the policy not to spend the money came
from Mr. Dennie Skeens, who worked for the State Department
of Education.
Mr. Welsheimer stated that he had served on an advisory
committee that had recommended that both buildings be sold as
soon as possible. Mr. Holycross replied that he understood
that the School Corporation had placed both buildings on the
market.
Mr. Oxian said that he had written a letter to the Indiana
Superintendent of Schools complaining about state policy as
described by Mr. Skeens. He felt that such policy violated
local ordinance and asked where authority came from for state
officials to ignore local laws; an answer had not yet been
received.
B. 1204 Lincolnwav West -- staff was notified by the owner
that repairs had begun; staff site visit revealed that work
was in progress.
C. 1244 Lincolnwav East -- Code Enforcement hearing on
90-3-92 ruled the garage must be demolished; staff informed
CE that a COA would be necessary before demolition took
place.
D. 941-943 Riverside Drive -- During Code Enforcement hearing
on 10-5-92 owners' representative informed both departments
that repairs were underway; owners and mangers of property
were sent all pertinent HPC procedure information by staff.
E. 1716 East Wavne -- New owners had recently purchased
property; they were sent notice by staff; it was hoped that
they would comply with HPC directives and remove the
inappropriate gate from in front of property.
7. Personnel
No report.
8. Staff Reports.
No report.
V. Old Business
No report.
VI. New Business
8
No report.
VII. Hearing of Visitors
Mr. Ron Farrand asked when there would be time for the School
Corporation to comment on the historic designation of school
properties. Mr. Oxian explained that they would have that
opportunity in November.
VIII. Announcements/Miscellaneous Matters
Mr. Holycross announced that he had volunteered staff
participation in a nation-wide project sponsored by the
Smithsonian and other organizations to survey public sculpture;
the HPC would be involved by surveying sculpture in St. Joseph
County.
IX. Adjournment
Mr. Hide moved to adiourn. Mr. Herendeen seconded the motion.
Approved unanimouslv.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:46 p.m.
6
TREASURER'S REPORT: OCTOBER, 1992
As can be seen from the St. Joseph County computer ledger
(account #001.39211.000.034) for October 1992, we have incurred
no unusual expenses. This month's expenditures came to $2632.28.
The computer ledger does not reflect two payments to staff also
made in October due up-to-date read-out being unavailable at this
writing: 490.00 (Hodges) & 708.33 (Kotzbauer). Total expenditures
for 1992 come to $34,583.29. Our unencumbered account balance is
$8229.76.
In October we guiatesed (deposited) $983.00 into the St. Joseph
County General Fund. Of this amount, $980.00 was the September
(1992) Community Development Block Grant reimbursement; the
remainder payments for COA fees and/or photocopying. We also took
in $16.00 in Petty cash: $10.00 for the sale of a Summary Report;
$6.00 in COA fees.
001.39211.000.034 HISTORIC PRESERVATION
10/92
10/06/92
CLAIM
32.37
10/92
10/06/92
CLAIM
99.75
10/92
10/06/92
CLAIM
490.00
10/92
10/06/92
CLAIM
23.76
10/92
10/06/92
CLAIM
6.24
10/92
10/20/92
CLAIM
73.50
10/92
10/20/92
CLAIM
708.33
001.39211.000.034 HISTORIC PRESERVATION
ESTIMATED REY
RECEIPTS UNRECV
REV BAL
TOT 0.00
0.00
0.00
COMMISSIONERS
PO 000000 VEN 000507 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BK 02 CHK 156341 AUDIT MASTER
PO 054537 VEX 000684 GENES CAMERA STORE INC BK 02 CHK 156353 • AUDIT MASTER
PO 000000 VEX 000907 HODGES, SUSHMITA . BK 02 CHK 156368 AUDIT MASTER
PO 000000 VEX 001154 MICHIANA AREA COUNCIL OF BK 02 CHK 156396 AUDIT MASTER
PO 000000 VEX 001538 SOUTH BEND TRIBUNE BK 02 CNK 156430 AUDIT MASTER
PO 000000 YEN 300017 BK 02 CHK 157208 DOCKET DIST
PO 000000 VEX 002359 KOTZBAUER, AMY BK 02 CHK 157254 DOCKET DIST
COMMISSIONERS
APPROPRIATION ENCUMBRANCE EXPENDITURE UNEXPENDED BAL UNENCUMB BAL
42,560.93 0.00 32,732.84 9,828.09 91828.09
x:xxxxxxxx:xxxxxxxxxxx::xxxxxx:x:xxx:xxxxxxxxxxxx:xxxxxx:::xxx:xxxxxxxxx:xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:xi:xxxxxxxxx:►:xxxxxxxxx:xxxxxxxxxxxxxx:x:x
Correspondence Received -- October 13, 1992 to November 12, 1992
-- Face of the Citv Newsletter October, 1992; Goshen, Indiana.
-- Northern Indiana Historical Societv Fall Quarter, 1992.
-- The Alliance Review Fall, 1992; Nat. Alliance of Preservation
Commissions.
-- Introduction to Federal Proiects and Historic Preservation Law 1993
Schedule; Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the GSA Interagency
Training Center.
-- Near Northwest Neighborhood News October, 1992.
-- Michiana Area Construction Industry Advancement Fund: "Plans on File,"
October 9 & 26, and November 2 & 9, 1992.
-- Team Tourism September/October, 1992; Indiana Department of Commerce.
-- The Mortar Board November/December, 1992.
Nov 12, 1992
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
STAFF APPROVALS: OCTOBER 13, 1992 -- NOVEMBER 12, 1992
ST,# STREET CATEGORY PROJECT DESCRIPTION
549
Edgewater roofing; Replace roof shingles
Drive chimney; (house and garage): remove
outbuild old shingles; install
ing underlayment; install new
drip edge; install
"Manville (Woodlands)
25 -year" shingles; install
Coravent along roof ridge;
install two chimney caps.
DESIG CASE#
------- ----- -----
LHD-EP 1992-1028
W
STAFF REPORT:
Legal & Maintenance Update --
"Problem Properties"
3
LEGAL
805 Arch Avenue
Background: Rear entry canopy removed w/o COA
Present Status: Staff met with owner; work is underway to comply; owner
will rebuild appropriate canopy
MAINTENANCE
1716 East Wavne Street -- East Wavne Street LHD
Background: Property owner Susan L. Metzger had a fence and gate
constructed at her property without a COA sometime before July 22, 1991.
The owner was given a partial COA in August, 1991 for the project. The HPC
ruled that the fence was appropriate but the gate was not. The owner was
directed to submit an alternate proposal for staff approval.
No change was forthcoming and the owner was contacted by HPC legal counsel
in January, 1992; the owner did not comply. HPC staff again contacted the
owner by mail on May 7, 1992 asking for cooperation; the owner contacted
the staff on May 29, 1992 in order to discuss a compromise. Owner was sent
several examples of appropriate gates. On June 1 the staff received another
letter stating that the owner was "working on the problem."
On September 3, 1992, staff again sent a letter asking for the owner's
compliance. Staff received a call a week later; Ms. Metzger informed staff
that the property had been sold to Jennifer and Bill Nolan. Ms. Metzger
suggested that the new owners might want to remove gate entirely.
Present Status: STAFF VISITED SITE 11-16-92; GATE HAS BEEN REMOVED.
F. Holycross
November 16, 1992