The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSeptember 1994AGENDA OF THE REGULAR MEETING of the HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular monthly meeting 7:30 p.m. Monday, September 19, 1994 County Commissioner's Conference Room 7th floor County -City Building I. Call to Order II. Roll Call A. Introduction of Christine Anderson - Administrative Assistant III. Public Hearing A. Certificates of Appropriateness 1. 978 Riverside Drive -- RSD-LHD 2. 1308 East WEayne Street -- EW-LHD 405 West Wayne Street LL 4. 1316 East Wayne Street EW-LHD /zIV. Regular Business - August 15, 1994 A. Approval of Minutes I. July Minutes - 2nd reading Niles Av. Lamppost B. Treasurer's Report C. Correspondence D. Committee Reports 2. Budget & Finance 3. Legal 4. Historic Districts a. Chronology for designation of new districts 5. Historic Landmarks a. First reading on landmark status for the following properties: none a. Second reading on landmark status for the following properties: 310 West Monroe (Olivet AME Zion Church, Zion Hill Baptist) 1601 Kemble Avenue (Toth State Bank) 534 LaPorte Avenue (Starzynski Texaco Gasoline Station) 6. Standards & Maintenance a. 1417 East Wayne (approved) b. 1244 Lincoinway East (See old business) c. 1130 East Jefferson (Meeting with Contractor) 7. Personnel 8. Staff Reports a. C of A Staff Approvals 1. 726 Arch Avenue -- EP-LHD 2. 713 Cushing Street -- LL 3. 549 Edgewater Drive -- EP-LHD 4. 209 Hammond Place -- RB-LHD b. Grant Applications V. Old Business A. COAs continued form previous meeting(s) 1. 1244 Lincolnway East LWE-LHD (restoration) 2. 1244 Linco1nway East LWE-LHD (demolition) B. 615-617 Riverside Drive Staff requests to void COAs deemed by the Common Council to have not been required. VI. New Business A. Leave of absence for Joanne Sporleder (Commission Historian) VII. Hearing of Visitors VIII. Announcements & Miscellaneous Matters IX. Adjournment 44 -lb j�y I CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT PROPERTY -- 978 Riverside Drive South Bend, Indiana OWNER -- Peter Yuen DESIGNATION -- RSD-LHD; NRHD-CP STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE/HISTORIC CONTEXT This residence constructed circa 1917 is a two story brick structure with a hip roof over the main body. A one story sunroom at the front and attached garage have flat roofs..The features of the structure reflect the Prairie Style. The structure was rated Significant/11 in the Indiana Historic Sites & Structures Inventory and considered to be in excellent condition. PROPOSED CHANGE The Owner proposes to replace half round gutters with new ogee profile guttering. STANDARDS IIB.(2) Recommended: Whenever possible, the original shape and materials of the roof should be restored. Particular effort should be made to retain such features as slate, tile, and other features not commonly found in new construction.... when necessary gutters and downspouts shall be maintained or replaced with a style comparable and suitable to the architectural period. RECOMMENDATION The roofing of this structure was recently replaced with new material under a COA for in-kind replacement which included replacement of the steel half -round type guttering. The subject application was subsequently received from the Owner for the exchange of gutter material with aluminum ogee gutter. The half round gutter material which has been remove as a result of the replacement of the roofing was found to be in deteriorated (severely corroded) condition (The owner and contractor had originally agreed to retain this material). There is no conclusive basis for believing this material to be original to the structure. Illustrations of Prairie style dwellings typically show no gutter system which is consistent with the wide overhangs inherent in the style. Both half round and ogee gutter material were available at the time of this structure's construction. Installation of either type system is consistent with the closed soffit eave condition without causing need for alteration. The Staff therefore recommends approval of the ogee gutter material. David B. Duvall 9/12/94 a .i CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT PROPERTY -- 1308 East Wayne Street (S) South Bend, Indiana OWNER -- Stephen Anella DESIGNATION -- EW-LHD STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE/HISTORIC CONTEXT This residence constructed circa 1948 is a two story frame structure with a brick first story. The features of the structure reflect the Colonial Revival Style. The structure was rated Contributing/9 in the Indiana Historic Sites & Structures Inventory. PROPOSED CHANGE The Owner proposes to remove existing concrete walkway between driveway and front door and replace with new stained concrete hexagonal pavers. New pavement is to be in the same general location as the existing but further from front foundation plantings and wider. STANDARDS IB.(1) Required Major landscaping items ,trees, fencing, walkways...... shall be retained. IB.(2) Recommended .....New site work should also be appropriate to existing surrounding site elements in scale, type, and appearance..... RECOMMENDATION The existing walk is found by the current owner to be too narrow to accommodate easy passage. The growth and development of the foundation plantings have encroached on the pathway further constricting its use. Reasonable use of the path from the drive to the front door would imply expansion of the pave area to the proposed forty-two inch width. The retention of the path in its general location would seem to satisfy the required retention of the walkway without regard to its specific material composition. Staff recommends approval of the proposed alterations to the walkway. David B. Duvall 9/12/94 I's gn4, l I zl,Z CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT PROPERTY -- 405 West Wayne Street South Bend, Indiana OWNER -- Eric Diamond DESIGNATION -- LL, NR -MRA STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE/HISTORIC CONTEXT This former residence now used as an office was constructed circa 1872. The building is a two and one half story brick structure with a mansard roofed attic story . The features of the structure reflect the Second Empire and Itallianate Styles. The structure was rated Outstanding/13 in the Indiana Historic Sites & Structures Inventory. PROPOSED CHANGE The Owner proposes'to provide metal railings for the existing front and rear porch steps per the documentation submitted. No railings are present. The proposed railings for the front steps shall have decorative castings derived from the ironwork of the widow's walk at the rooftop integrated into their design. STANDARDS C.I. Structure Necessary structural improvements, where safety demands should be accomplished in such a way as to cause minimal chamnge to the original style and construction. C.2 Costruction and Style All work should be done in the architectural style and in a techgnique compatible with that of the original structure....... RECOMMENDATION The existing steps and stoops are without the railings which safety would imply and the building code requires. The proposed railings are appropriate for this purpose. The use of metal is approprite to this period and the employment of motifs derived from the ironwork at the roof is consistant with the guidelines for style. Staff recommends approval of the proposed railings. PROPOSAL AWNINGS OF.MICHIANA 2100 LINCOLNWAY WEST • MISHAWAKA, INDIANA 46544 t • • r r Proposal SubmittedToI " t } ' Proposal No. Sheet No. Date Work To Be Performed At - Diamond t Name Street Same Streeti 05 W y_%�o City Siat citySoo,?+-t• 'D --A Date of Plans Stat- In i44nl Architect ` Telephone Number _ ,,A*A We here Jro ose, tofu riish�the mAterialA'and perform the la-t�ocess' c tfoJ v{h cp letion ofd r.. • a ..c _ p -w epi r_ s �. v. 7. (� ='y: _•4: l.. �.+ _pec a .i:,� .. ...+r- e.!tie$s wt�-__s' .'';.I.;i o _ ;�y: .:,,...•, Fabricate and install porch and step railings front stoop. Use customer castings ,weld into 34 to 36 in high rails. Attach to existing column and wood trim . Do not drill into steps. Clean,and paint prime and rust proof top coat. Sketch of work to be done. .s, Install standard railings rear porctand steps. t All material is guaranteed to be as specified, and the above work to be performed in accordance with the drawings and specifications submitted for above work and completed in ' a substantial workmanlike manner for the sum . `of Dollars ($ ). with payments to be made as follows: __ _ -- 1-��: _._. - _. 1 _.• is Ba atice__due :;oiohcompletian.. .. - -;iS•. : - -- _ ;,.-' 'Y-�~"Y''.+Fi`1'z';iilt..,..,.y.,;..:.a-.<<r,..._•„_;xi"�-rrat2t:.:ka:.::v�-,- July 5,1994 Any alteration or deviation from above specifications involving Respectfully submitter) extra costs, will be executed only upon written orders, and will become an extra charge over and above the estimate, All agreements contingent upon strikes, accidents or delays beyond our control. Owner to carry fire, tornado and other necessary / insurance upon above work. Workmen's Compensation and Note — This proposal may be withdrawn Public Liability Insurance on above work to be taken out by by us if not accepted within days ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL The above prices, specifications and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized to do the work as specified. Payment will be made as outlined above. Signature Dat- Signature LrTHO IN V.S.A. e Contractor Overhead Protection, Inc 2100 Lincolnway West Mishawaka, In 46544 219-255-_0294 Beare C Philipson Proposed railing installation 405 West Wayne St South Bend, In 46601 Pair 15 Ga welded steel railing. & steps South, side front. /sf Pickets 4 in. on center........:..................................................................................I............ Customer castes welded in as shown.,.. Attach to existing wood trim and post. Front post of rail set in concrete. Finish gloss black Pair Proposed railing N6rth-side-405 West'Wayne Install on cast.concrete_step &.platform All 1/2 in sq. pickets approx 4 in on center Bolt to thick part'of steps 3-4in-from edge CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT PROPERTY -- 1316 East Wayne Street (S) South Bend, Indiana OWNER -- Miles & Stacy Andrew DESIGNATION -- EW-LHD STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE/HISTORIC CONTEXT This residence designed by H. R. Stapp and constructed by Whitcomb & Keller circa 1927 is a two story steel frame structure with painted brick exterior and a hip roof covered in what appears to be concrete tile. The features of the structure reflect the Renaissance Revival Style. The structure was rated Significant/12 in the Indiana Historic Sites & Structures Inventory. The house was built for John S. Edwards, treasurer of the Edwards Iron Works; thus the emphasis on metal structure and features. PROPOSED CHANGE The Owner proposes to remove existing concrete tile roofing and replace it with new replacement shingle selected to simulate the appearance of the tile roof. STANDARDS II.B.(1) Required The existing shape and materials of the roof shall be retained.... II.B.(2) Recommended Whenever possible, the original shape and materials of the roof should be restored. Particular effort should be made to retain such materials as slate, tile, and other materials not commonly found in new construction. Roof covering which is deteriorated beyond repair should be replaced with new material that matches as closely as possible the original in composition, size, shape, color, and texture..... RECOMMENDATION The existing roofing has been found by the owners to be defective resulting in interior damage due to moisture. Some indication of this can be observed from the exterior, under the eaves where peeling paint is in evidence. However, visual survey of the tile roofing does not show indication of significant or widespread damage to the roofing tile itself. Staff has pursued the re -use of existing tile over new underlayment with the Owner. The experience of the Traeger Company is that concrete tiles of this sort will not sustain the stresses of removal and that replacement of the concrete tiles with new clay tile would be the recommended procedure for a tile solution. Although not the preferred solution, the asphalt replacement shingles which are proposed (Cert:ainteed-florizon or Manville -Woodlands) do simulate the appearance and texture desired. Since the replacement with clay would require at least six times the expense of the proposed asphalt roofing, Staff recommends approval of this proposal. David B. Duvall 9/13/94 War BOB GRANT CONSTRUCTION 512 E. TASHER STREET an-. SOUTH BEND, IN 46614 Phone 291-j7195 TO Mrs 1`�/: /t•c ��,, nl �n,,t OB DESCRIPTION: PHONE r2?�7,--7-`Z/7 JOB NAME/LOCATION DATE T-1 -I �i.! �/ ?�f7 l(c..r'L,�/ �l-�ri �,rn. 7 P Z� (iff(I Pri`�rr/1�c1 �/ r, a�c•�y�� /) Inc, cJ /c, � 7C�P ��P//'1r,i� /7r'/ r• r`/ ��rY, //�� J l� �O K e .., (� - J / r r , �.O .rte "�s I e - l t 9 P �7- t^ Pc v 4, 44,7 PIC LP ✓`rC'! f ( r� c � � �„1v.i�� (�1,�2,rl,r r7 v-- ( PP✓/��r.� /C�P<�X% �� G- "'.�t•fl r . ! P ✓'�/r .-, � P � �Yn •/. i r'lr� _ � � �. r��i ./� � '�':. 1--� SLi. � t e _ /P � �lV L� rf L9 ! ! P !,< 11✓1-ri� cp `. �� 0�:�-� �,"P r r, r c•1 r•, �P (� Gi 1, i r -.• / -/k •f ti ed 7--- C)-4122, JrJ01 r 0 :2�n. /rOr,t/ .t6� Pr �r• �/P - ESTIMATED —STIMATE IS FOR COMPLETING THE JOB AS DESCRIBED JOB COST BOVE. IT IS BASED ON OUR EVALUATION AND DOES NOT IN- LUDE MATERIAL PRICE INCREASES OR ADDITIONAL LABOR AND IATERIALS WHICH MAY BE REQUIRED SHOULD UNFORESEEN ROBLEMS ARISE AFTER THE WORK HAS STARTED. ESTIMATED BY . � � , 1 ! , � i ,. . ! ,-- . ,._!. ! 1 'f 7- _. �,'.. � rte.. �- T--- , � -• r. ; r. e '4 MC-6ville The Wo od/ and.Roof rhe look o .: 't the per fWood Of fiber lass rr,ante 4 -. }• A �'-y � b�.. 1f'yt¢. �r i N ,�+�y.'l�fiS.wY "1,� # ; 3? -i JYz'xtyi 4b1'zt ;rte^w. a€ a•"a:. ) i, ♦.Y. EE'^iG''.- u-''rt�i"�( Y r•.iA `'�9 'u` g '� •��.'" >4 +Ya` ! t � � �y 4 1 '�• "...{r��5,�xidd�,ri _iii t � 'y s.•xs.K", pyx t '� `fG'* .+ '+ �.�, t.kK. �...�` y �,c -~ i,� '•E,�•5, #'tP'�t} 4'��'st'%t�'g3r �,,1y ��! � "y'�.'�, �r •. c,,,,• ti ^r,� 'i'. $ t;'�- '�.j to `'� y��yy C ` x, cr ,�1`s �rf'<. t" � it . ,_...�.,,+sti i',.'.Gr.e ,��. �:1�.a.�*^,��t a3"•....,.lF.�:�.�+..__�`'v .*,r?nr .-Gl s�'.. tas; .!' -So,_ ' 1 1 ^s'�zt"Nuel-Q-0 { iS I` >t {'. `s.".? -iv ��'r��''-'•,, - '`�?,i #a may. :.,',,,,�`;z<. t �+Y{a,} r,. ,.yt-•wv2 - ',y�, t' x2y +y, w >t.. •�' t_ 7Psir':r ; elf t - �w�y�x� s yy�",�"rir*t s� 7'a a� c- s iAt "'t<.j ]a� tr "'"'f�.,, �„� •<�-ti.,,ti .y,7 -,i y x +�'^uiy _ ^�.�y� '�3`„ �C"! ,t ; � '-c'rs,,,,,,�?tN �gL 3d.•1 *,x• L' cs ., •s .t _ / -'� "`+•^4� '�. a 3. Z + �y,',�;i'^% 4 f °a ' :�*tt`' t� . ,3' .' i r +s�< r E7 "`"""ice �,.� �•` saw �.' •.'. ,i.wa=i,�.. ' � <' ti r { � �"'.'�.%4i7a' 'a.��'�� .kid' Y.M fib" fFi � ''>.:, �� 2- .',ft.id.r<, T{ i1„ty»." "`'�s-;�<'t"^1��a��."G�. � i ` r -e � '�d`"r�.,� n�rryt ys..s . y" Ne'��x"xti'Y ''s""'�.."y''�".`��• '..";;h r,x• f�. a' w..r ��! / Z ,a- 'ih ��''s "'x. r • `+'" �.a"�.,.'T-� ��;.�J,�Frfi+: tt• t tk s r t- iS> - �^' va.w ,+.,w, '�,, "`"<,"�a•�""`.��<��,*.�. -,. } �.,zr,ltxY4„w,'Y.+v# .y� ; r r'ri..cs;. `�"'�?'•t <.,�.•� �.�. '`:C,��, ,a�t'��}.��•�,,. i,,. j>,u .p„'E �,� � a.�<-4a+t`".w. .�`�+.`w..Q "':,�w„"`":a: ,IN a. n}��:t4yr � t t�-� �1�� 'i':. }� ��;z� '�"��. ��..:%�� }�,= 1 �.y��.�ySf'�5t.1��" •r�^a� £M .M,N�t�t}4'„Y-_ ..�� >�iy"t�+�t �+T .'y�ypa�� "i„�.•`1. s''1,.?°' M ,gy 's^e ;.N ^t,"'�tra,,' x 4' w'��s♦ -'" � 'R ;.._3}' :,+,�.z,<.a„�a "".a�y��' •,,.,,,,�' „wA`'t 5�. ` ,j9'v t� a Q31.rt��"•� . S i. �"'� '�" a '!':Px a) .i'� � """K+'or.""`"'i'+""""':" `a'�.,,,. `..' r"� u}. ` `., "t'�st �t F �� % ✓° �'� xa1 a: . st � �`. �.,� _ �..� .,� 'w,.,,. t. t?c'�`t•'s f y '� +. .^r ! +v,, ..7. �(,* ;Y r "av: w,,,, M.,< �'-�••,, 4 h} FfL? , t a a t� r x Yjin fa 4 �V,yc �' q /'t t a: rt �'r-.P.x�ili. S! ,��a+F't.•7�_,�,rw.�y•p""' r r ...''�� 7" a k �t �� a2 �a �� `f�> yli,+,� ins= +w. +^d--�`"t,•�_: � 4P s ,� a ��.�y�$,.��...y. �^r„�:.yx .�sra `��. _'r"aax'St"��x�ery��•a►,� ..`•�'�:.-;. ♦� .� Y. �Tl� <� nP+,t��,f Ly ;Z�q^,+�j{�'i'_ .F',�r� \ T �'tt'`{�,�` ' '. Tz � � �W '^+,-�+t"•�' ?- �N. v k �1'',{{{ S�,` `SY,. y'�,;'y�, R a � „jF'�.k ty4"s7 � s ^2"..`.+ ` � ��,,"F,• x 1 '!� `w-+3u''aukas�'a � i ."-....` . '�?gt� _r�Ae�t +a'��<,.y� -cn f -�.., .�"~<"► '••a Yyi:•rff, �-�r .rr�t' '�. � � ».s,`•,�:. �.ra,�"'- � . _ `c'•s,.�"`"`r.,D "�» ., �n x %-•' ! t`';' is;� �" "',�. x •L,♦ !' jtj 1 r, s i. a"Nt ..* ":a`Ai<1,cA f,a ' 4 rti � * �� 2:'� ,J K4 �i4 +� w+► Sd tiiy+h � a!„ S µ�.Wti„,moi .1, }�$ V ' i/F•TYJ[.I"��,.j,��t��i`�<,. G:, �`r M •'a a 4F `'x'S r� '"'.` '�+."".+. '.a” w ! 2 7 �?`FrY:FIi %dr.��`��"ti »�:�.n,� ��r�. "`t. xtix��F,t �"' 1_.:, �a�.i= +,�••! � � 1 t`.c- -� i' ��x{.• -,��.1f,�~,C '�r,��A�+�r�t�;,�;'~3y`M•5a , L� 7� �1 i r�. �•��r _ cr,,r54�,�,,,t t ....c t 1// . � � c,. �. r'C�7�".w"'C'mSy,'�.%'�'yy'rY+;: d � '+� (, uC4i'`C r i''"8.+:, "�+ay+.: „� "".�R I- :. w tx it .tic '��4y�� _ ..:.•.. yk.! r �'�':t'f''�r,k��:�»"t7'^�k�"J.Ka» "�k ash -s' 1.3^t lty.. 'Kq.e;•'y'�.,-a. rr.; •�� r r,'x._w •'*i «' a« aS-�•'r•> x +'`yj � %,t i � fi.'.�. F"+ a .i,�t• }},,�� i•`~st a- . r ., j , ,. . *i �" � •y�'1 � yiii"3 y. 37 ,, T�y;rta .s '� t , ti -r.. � ., si ♦ �•�. � r' iq,;r"�..tst ♦ v,� "� y ,,,, f �' •� �^ '� aC�rT� 6 t a "�'t S a � � - `� L x �. ,y,i- �„• 'i rs •iS� s x' tea ��St',°:� � ;rkk.'�,rp•l.�r , �� ;i{' x} .... r�.r , �, i � � "r �, �t I<�t rr•'a4^ y �y,, �#,� t A� r� �s,.,C � . i . as t _ �.3 i'a°'m't�Y >•.Y S te-r ky , �-' a i,•tx �i "L �'OIri1'" t5rix. ,`..h� J`c y : a``av A. R�txk `' ' 1'yZ^,5:'�.. rt 't ''� - �i•!� �x: t 1 t�� rh - •Mufi �39,y.� >R�1 :.ti c. L♦_H �4a4''°1 ��'�i } ° MJF u s# Y i.. , �s ^l �''y. h' � �< � k F s ` � f rat's wii i f�;' nx L4S .•1'1< s 7? r?u, ,•^.,J �ka`�l1 v-nf.,,}'Yi ..iJti �t '�:y.• s'.d�+e•� _� ! 3 s 'thy ��'�' �. ,t a«•.i�r q .1si � F.. Aa, v .-"^`S�Iw'S•li c44.a � . i�"'i. ^ ` - z� ��l ��: r.�ts� A � v �?,`N �'r y'�� 4'.`t��X.+t''•�r;ice.°.. Vit"• y }, 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 August 15, 1994 I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. II. Roll Call Members present: Mrs. Martha Choitz, Mr. Jed Eide, Mrs. Catherine Hostetler, Mr, John Oxian, Mrs. Janeanne Petrass, Ms. Jewel VanDalsen, Mr. Jerry Wiener. Staff present: David B. Duvall - Director, Aladean DeRose - Legal Counsel Members absent: Ms. Lora Spaulding, Mrs. Joanne Sporleder. Also Present: David Clark, Kathy Dempsey (Code Enforcement), Michael Englert, Julie Englert, Arthur Grauman, Marty Murphy, Andrew Greta, Marsha Stevenson, Ed. Talley, unidentified resident of Lincolnway East LHD (late arrival) III. Public Hearing A. Certificates of Appropriateness 1. 1207 Riverside Drive -- RSD-LHD Mr. Duvall read the Staff Report. Mr. Duvall noted that the applicant was not present. Commissioner Eide moved to approve the application commenting that he was familiar with the proposed replacement shingle and that it was the best available in the Asphalt/Fiberglass Range. Commissioner Hostetler seconded the motion. The motion was passed unanimouslv. 2. 317 West Washington -- Central High School -LL Mr. Duvall read the Staff Report. President Oxian inquired as to whether a committee meeting had been held with regard to this application. Commissioners Hostetler and Petrass responded in the affirmative. President Oxian asked if the committee reviewed it or made a recommendation. Commissioner Hostetler indicated that the committee reviewed it and made a recommendation to approve along with the window changes. Commissioner Choitz moved to approve the application. Commissioner Petrass seconded the motion. The motion Passed with six ves votes. President Oxian abstained. 3. 1097 Riverside Drive -- RSD-LHD Mr. Duvall read the Staff Report. Mr. Duvall expanded on the Staff Comments to explain the chronology of events which led to having no photographs of the garage door closed in place. Commissioner Choitz recounted her observations of the condition of this door over an extended period of time. Commissioner Choitz moved to approve the application. Commissioner Wiener seconded the motion. The motion Passed unanimously. 4. 1069 Riverside Drive -- RSD-LHD Mr. Duvall read the Staff Report. Commissioner Choitz noted that the applicant's presentation was excellent.President Oxian asked the applicants if there was anything which they would like to add. He also complimented the presentation. Commissioner Eide moved to approve the application. Commissioner Choitz seconded the motion. Commissioner Hostetler asked if the brick was to be laid in sand. The applicant responded affirmatively. President Oxian asked about the landscaping indicated in the site plan(s) as to whether new trees were indicated. The applicant responded that the indications were to be surface planting as yet to be determined and not trees. The motion passed unanimouslv. 5. 1130 East Jefferson Blvd. -- EW-LHD Mr. Duvall read the Staff Report. President Oxian asked the Owners if they had anything to add to the Staff Comments. Mr. Englert stated that the exterior would match the Sun -Room (referred to in Staff Comments as the west wing) and indicated that the roof of the new enclosure would be in the same plane as the existing Sun -Room roof and noted that the existing gutters were copper. Mrs. Englert reiterated that the new roof would not be higher or lower than the existing roof and that the contractor had indicated that there would be no problem. She said that all the information was right there and that they would answer any questions. Mr Duvall commented that he in no way meant to indicate that the problems were unresolvable, but that the continuous string course of cornice was unachievable in one plane as shown in the submitted materials and observed that it is not uncommon for the commission to refer applications to the Standards and Maintenance Committee for final approval. Mrs. Englert explained that the second story structure shown in the illustration but not included in the application was for a walk-in closet which had been estimated to cost $50000 and had been eliminated from their plans at this time due to cost consideration. Commissioner Eide asked Mr. Duvall about the cornice line of the two wings being out of the same plane. Mr. Duvall confirmed this. Commissioner Eide concurred that this detail required resolution and stated that Mr. Walker, the contractor for the project could probably clarify the final construction for the committee. Mr. Duvall noted that the office of the contractor had been closed for the entire period between the submittal of the application and this meeting. Mr. Englert stated that the contractor could attend but indicated that he was not sure of what the concern was. Commissioner Choitz stated that the commission wanted to be assured of how the proposed new work was to connect to or meet the old. Mrs. Englert then introduced the issue of the curved section referred to as the cove soffit: in Staff Comments indicating that the porch roof would come straight across from the west wing and meet the conditions of the east wall recognizing that the new roof could not come as high as the cove soffit. Commissioner Eide observed that where the new and old walls mei: would be forward (with reference to the illustration) of the cove soffit. President Oxian indicated a concern that the proposed roof might ruin the situation. Mrs. Englert asked what situation he was referring to. Mr. Oxian observed that if the contractor made some mistake with regard to resolving this problem of detail that it was the applicant who would suffer the consequences. Mrs. Englert indicated that she understood Mr. Oxian but that she and her husband were comfortable with the contractor. Commissioner Eide moved that the application be referred to the Standards and Maintenance Committee and that the committee should meet with the contractor to resolve the details of concern. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Choitz. The motion was approved unanimouslv. IV. Regular Business A. Approval of Minutes - July 18, 1994 Commissioner Petrass moved that the minutes from the July meeting be approved as written. Commissioner Choitz seconded the motion. The minutes were approved unanimously. B. Treasurer's Report There was no report from the Treasurer. C. Correspondence Mr. Duvall Made the Commission aware of the following items of interest which have been received: 1. New Brochure from the National Park Service - "My Property is important to the Nations Heritage - What does that mean ?" 2. Solicitation for "Main- Street Awards" from the Indiana Dept. of Commerce. Nominations are due by Sept. 1. 3. Notice of "Indiana Main Street Conference" September. 21, 22, & 23 in Elkhart. 4. Notice of DNR -Division of Historic Preservation & Archaeology winter internships. 5. Notice of Affordable Housing Forum, Friday August19 sponsored by the South Bend & St. Joseph Co. Housing Consortium. 6. Notice of Southhold's new Office location 516 South Street. D. Committee Reports 1. Budget & Finance No report. 2. Legal Mrs. Derose reported of the City of South Bend Common Council's hearing of Mr.. Dennis Laskowski's appeal of those aspects of his application for COA (1994-06-23-2) which were denied by the commission. She indicated that in her opinion the Council's decision was incorrect but that it is not in the best interest of the commission to pursue appeal. From this occasion she has concluded that the commission needs to be more careful in the wording of motions for denial to include in such motions the reason(s) for the denial in the record. She further stated that the situation which caused this appeal were somewhat unique, having to do with the delay in establishing the design guidelines after the designation of the River Bend LHD and specifically being based in the letter of Fred Holycross (former Director of the HPC) which sought to persuade the property owner to apply for a COA rather than requiring that he do so. John Oxian observed that he, Commissioner Hostetler, and Mr. Duvall spoke at the meeting of the Common Council and that the hearing of the appeal took approximately two hour. Commissioner Choitz inquired as to whether the same standard of presenting reasons should be applied to the assigning of applications to committee. Mrs. DeRose responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Eide then made a statement that the reason for referring the application for 1130 East Jefferson was for clarification of the detail where the southeast corner of the new roofline meets the garage. 4. Historic Districts Mr. Duvall stated that there had not been a meeting of the committee to discuss the Lincolnway West potential local Historic District. President Oxian observed that the (Lincolnway West) board (of directors) had not met either. Commissioner Choitz observed that there needed to be a meeting of the committee of the whole to review the options which have been outlined by the director before a general public meeting should be held. The steering committee makeup could require change depending on what areas are to be included, the main options being Lincolnway frontage only, the possibility of segmentation into more than one district. President Oxian indicated that the preliminary documents should be circulated to the members of the Historic Districts Committee prior to meeting. Mrs. DeRose then addressed the issue of the chronology of adopting standards and guidelines with relation to the designation of districts. This was one of the main issues in the Laskowski appeal. She made the directive that it be made clear to all property owners within future new districts that until specific standards and guidelines have been established for a district, the model guidelines will apply and that Certificates of Appropriateness are required from the moment that a new district is created. Commissioner Choitz indicated that she understood "that magic moment" to be when the HPC made its recommendation. Mrs. DeRose corrected that the HPC authority in a new district would commence when the Common Council adopts the ordinance creating the district. President Oxian clarified that before River Bend the Standards and Guidelines had always been approved prior to the ordinance and that in the case of River Bend, the Standards and Guidelines had not yet been adopted at the time that the common Council approved the ordinance due to the requirement of the amended enabling ordinance which required recommendation from the HPC within 90 days. Mrs. DeRose observed that it was this discrepancy which led in part to the success of Mr.Laskowski's appeal wherein he was able to represent that his understanding was that there were not yet standards. Mrs. DeRose reiterated that in future new districts that until specific standards and guidelines have been established for a district, the model guidelines will need to be made to apply and that Certificates of Appropriateness are to be required from the moment that a new district is created. In the Laskowski situation the problem was compounded by a letter from former director Fred Holycross to the applicant in which he failed to adequately assert the authority of the commission. 5. Historic Landmarks a. First reading on landmark status for the following properties: 1601 Kemble Avenue (Toth State Bank) 534 LaPorte Avenue (Starzynski Texaco Gasoline Station) b. President Oxian inquired whether the former Administrative assistant, Chip Frederick had forwarded the recommendation of the Commission to landmark the lamp post at the corner of Niles and Leeper. Mr. Duvall indicated that he did not Know. President Oxian instructed Staff to proceed with this activity. 6. Standards & Maintenance No report. 7. Personnel President Oxian reported that the Executive Committee had met to review the applications for the position of Administrative Assistant and the results of interviews conducted by Mr. Duvall and that he was in the process of consulting the references of the applicants who were found to be best suited. 8. Staff Reports a. C of A Staff Approvals 1. 1097 Riverside Drive -- RSD-LHD - In-kind restoration of garage 2. 615/617 Riverside Drive -- RB-LHD - Placement of air conditioning equipment 3. 1215 Riverside Drive -- RSD-LHD - In-kind replacement of landscaping elements 4. 978 Riverside Drive -- RSD-LHD - In-kind replacement of roofing & gutter 5. 975 Riverside Drive -- RSD-LHD - In-kind replacement of wood shingle at pent roof 6. 16021 Cleveland Road -- LL - In-kind replacement of asphalt shingle roofing President Oxian observed that he believed there may have been some construction activity not authorized by COA at this location and advised staff to be vigilant. b. Grant Applications The HPC submitted an application to Economic Development for $19,000 continued CDBG funding of the Administrative Assistant position. V. Old Business A. COAs continued form previous meeting(s) 1. 1244 Lincolnway East -- LWE-LHD (restoration) 2. 1244 Lincolnway East -- LWE-LHD (demolition) Mr. Duvall observed that per the June meeting of the HPC he had sent a request to the applicant for additional information as was indicated from the application. Having not received this information for interpretation. he had prepared no comments. He then turned to Mrs. DeRose for clarification of the primacy of this application with regard to the other pending application from Code Enforcement for this same property. Mrs. DeRose recommended that the Application from Dr. Klopfer, the owner, be referred to committee for definition. Since he has applied for COA for restoration, the committee should indicate how that restoration is to be accomplished. The application should then be returned with recommendations to the commission for approval. Dr. Klopfer should be informed of all meetings and invited to attend. President Oxian inquired about time limitations with regard to performance. Mrs. DeRose responded that the COA was for a period of one year. Mr. Oxian then consulted Mrs. Dempsey of Code Enforcement as to how she would dispose her application in this situation. Mrs. DeRose observed that Code Enforcement's application was filed first and therefore merited consideration noting that the requested demolition was disfavored by the Standards & Guidelines. Mr. Duvall Observed that the use of the term restore in Dr. Klopfer's application provided a baseline for the Standards and Maintenance Committee's interpretation. President Oxian proposed that it was necessary for the committee to make a site observation prior to the writing of recommendations. Mrs. DeRose reiterated the necessity of reasonable notice to the owner of all activities undertaken. Commissioner Hostetler questioned what notice need be given. Mrs. DeRose indicated that the director should draft a letter to the owner which should be approved by counsel prior to posting. Commissioner Eide observed that it was highly irregular for the commission to provide the scope of work for an applicant. Mrs. DeRose allowed that it was highly irregular and noted that the commission had never had an applicant disregard the HPC's process in this manner previously. Commissioner Hostetler observed that if the applicant had employed the term rehabilitate in the submitted application that this would have been too vague but that the application for restoration was sufficient for the Standards & Maintenance Committee to interpret. Commissioner Eide asked if the applicant understood this, and Mr. Duvall read a paragraph from his letter of 6/23/94 (see letter attached) which provides definition of the term. Commissioner Eide expressed concern that this activity was going to consume the efforts of the committee members when the applicant had little invested in the process. Commissioner Hostetler commented that the committee could only proceed with the inspection if granted permission of the applicant. President Oxian noted that the commission did need to act on the COA application and that if the COA is denied, reasons need to be given. Mrs. DeRose .indicated that the alternative is to deny the COA for lack of information and then consider Code Enforcement's pending application for demolition. Commissioner Eide asked who had talked with him. Mrs. DeRose indicated that he will not talk to anyone. Mr. Duvall indicated that he has received our letter. Commissioner Eide speculated that this was a tactic on the part of the owner to avert Code Enforcement. Mrs. Dempsey exhibited a large file folder commenting that this represented only a portion of their record on this case and that the applicant had a long history of doing absolutely nothing. Commissioner Eide indicated that he felt we were cooperating with the applicant in subverting Code Enforcement and that the applicant needed to show more good faith in his dealing with the HPC. Mrs. DeRose reiterated that the HPC does have the choice of denying the COA and considering the application for demolition. Discussion continued briefly with no substantial new points of view or fact being presented. Mrs. Dempsey recalled that Code Enforcement's current request for demolition is a repetition of a previous application filed and denied in 1.993. She briefly reviewed their record of performing necessary public nuisance related maintenance at the subject yard and structure for the last seven or eight years. Commissioner Eide inquired about the resultant placement of liens on the property. Mrs. Dempsey noted that they had taken the owner to small. claims court. She also stated a that in her last conversation with him, he had indicated that the property was for sale but that he had found no interested buyers at the purchase price which he proposed. She stated that price to be in excess of $100,000. She indicated that she had worked with potential buyers who were willing to purchase in the range of $20.000. To the best of her knowledge the mortgage has been paid off. Commissioner Choitz proposed that the outline scope of work would not take long, noting that winter was coming and the structure might not survive another year. John Oxian asked whether if the COA for restoration has been approved, would the HPC be able to take legal action to make the owner complete work. Mrs. DeRose stated that the Minimum Maintenance Standards can be enforced but the COA cannot. The COA just indicates how work should be done if it is undertaken. She noted that the Minimum Maintenance Standards are enforced by Code Enforcement where the applicant already has a history of non-compliance. The discussion then turned to procedural questions regarding various scenarios of appeal which might transpire subsequent to the various courses of action discussed above. Some discussion ensued to the general consensus that it was not possible to understand clearly what the owners intentions were for this property. Commissioner Choitz indicated that Dr. Klopfer had made it clear at the time of the designation of the Historic Preservation District that he was not pleased by that action and that he had represented at that time that he had an option with McDonalds to place a restaurant at this site which was terminated as a result of the designation. The commissioners returned to the subject of how deadlines could be imposed. Mrs. DeRose indicated that although the HPC may not impose completion of work, it may entertain Code Enforcement's application for demolition after a set period. Commissioner Eide moved that Dr. Klopfer's application be assigned to the Standards & Maintenance Committee for recommendation reRardin2 the application. and that thereafter if the COA is approved. the work will need to be complete within 90 days after which the HPC will reconsider Code Enforcement's application for demolition. The commission discussed the necessity of requesting Dr. Klopfer's permission for entry and inviting his participation in the definition of the scope of work. An individual who did not register his name identified himself as a neighbor and commented that it appeared that the owner seemed to have a grudge and may continue to perform in such a minimal way as to prolong this process. He indicated that a minimal stabilization of the property which neither removed the structure or returned it to use was bad for the neighborhood. President Oxian observed that in previous HPC meetings other neighbors had presented differing opinions. Mr. Duvall added that it was .important to remember that the authority of the HPC applied only to the exterior features of the property. Commissioner Eide repeated his motion. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hostetler. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Hostetler inquired about whether there was riot something that the city was able to do in cases of recalcitrant property owners who refused to maintain properties which would lead to a conservation solution rather than recourse to demolition. Mrs. Dempsey responded that the city did have a receivership program but that in the case of 1244 Linco.lnway the cost of necessary repairs exceeds the Code Enforcement's budget for receivership projects and the combined involved and the risk of disincentive for potential effect of the extent of rehabilitation investment recapture by the present owner proved to be a independent receivership. Commissioner Hostetler stated that the city should have some kind of ability to confiscate in such situations. Mrs. Dempsey said that the city was pursuing such policies but had not yet a proper legal framework. Mrs. DeRose commented that in situations of condemnation the City would be required 'to compensate the owner at fair value noting that in this case the owner seemed to believe that the property was in excess of $100,000. Commissioner Choitz noted that there were possibly organizations which would have interest in this as a development project if the could be assured ownership or even interest on their investment. Mrs. Dempsey commented that a receiver could take out receivers notes and then foreclose on the notes. She continued that foreclosure is not quick or easy but is accomplishable. The businesses which had indicated interest in this property had been interested in it as a business location and not as a speculative investment. 3. Thelma Lawrence House 14603 Brick Road (not on agenda) President Oxian recalled Mr. Eric Eckert's presentation about the Thelma Lawrence house at the July HPC meeting and noted the extensive correspondence from the owner, Mr. Tom Murray in the ensuing month. He invited discussion about this structure and how the TIPC should proceed. Commissioner Eide asked whether private houses had been designated as landmarks over owner's objection in the past. President Oxian stated that it had been done. Commissioner Hostetler stated that if Mr. Eckert's presentation was verifiable, the structure would be eligible for landmark status. Mr. Duvall spoke to the issue of the veracity of Mr. Eckert's presentation to the effect that although the house was clearly patterned off of a Sears House plan; that Thelma Lawrence was a Sears Employee; and that by inference it could be assumed that the house was a Sears house. He further stated that the chronology of its construction was such that it would be among the last of the Sears houses built, but that Sears did not maintain sufficient archives to substantiate the claim that this was the last Sears house. He also observed that the wooded land associated with the house were already platted as lots B & C of the adjacent subdivision, fronting onto a cul-de-sac and not onto Brick Road. Commissioner Choitz noted that the property was for sale and that a subsequent owner might be more receptive to landmarking. She continued that physical evidence could substantiate the Sears connection if we had access to the property. Mr. Duvall stated that this could no doubt be verified by deposition from her survivors. The consensus was that the HPC should wait not take immediate action. Commissioner Wiener indicated that we should write another letter to the owner. Subsequent discussion refined that the letter should be of a conciliatory nature indicating that the HPC is not presently moving forward with landmarking process but that we would ask him to consider the structures importance and inform new buyers of the property's potential historic importance. VI. New Business There was no new business introduced. VII. Hearing of Visitors Mr. Talley noted that the in-kind replacement of wood shingle at the 900 block of Riverside Drive was the first indication in his neighborhood of the effectiveness of the new working relationship with Code Enforcement. VIII. Announcements & Miscellaneous Matters No announcements were made. IX. Adjournment President Oxian adjourned the meeting at 9:40 p.m. MEMO to: HPC members and counsel from: David B. Duvall, Director 8/25/94 The President of the Historic Preservation Commission has requested that I prepare a summary of the procedures required in the creation of a new Local Historic Preservation District. At the present time this process is governed by an accumulation of procedures as set forth in the following: 1) Ordinances of both the County and City (1973) 2) Resolution #9 (superseding Resolution #4) of the HPC establishing procedures of the HPC for the zoning of Historic Preservation Districts (1981) 3) Amendments to the ordinance(s), establishing procedures of the Common and County Councils for the establishment of Local Historic Preservation Districts. 4) Resolution of the HPC establishing procedures for the implementation of Historic District Preservation Standards. THE INTENTION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS TO MERGE THE SUBSTANCE OF THESE VARIOUS DOCUMENTS TO OFFER AN OVERVIEW OF THE REQUIRED CUMULATIVE PROCESS REQUIRED FOR THE CREATION OF A LOCAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION DISTRICT (LHD) AND TO THE IMPLIED CHRONOLOGY OF NECESSARY EVENTS. 1) A nomination may be initiated by the HPC or the general public in the form of a Neighborhood Steering Committee (NSC). The nomination shall include; Name, boundaries, list of Owners including addresses, map, pro -forma of the Sponsor, statement of goals, & statement of reasons for designation. 2) The Historic Districts Committee (HDC) of the HPC shall evaluate the application. Toward this end, the HPC Staff shall provide study aids required (i.e. photographs, maps, histories, etc.). 3) The HDC shall draft Preliminary Preservation Guidelines and present its evaluation to the HPC. THE PROCESS TO THIS POINT SHALL NOT EXCEED NINE MONTHS 4) At this point, all property owners within the proposed LHD are to be notified of the Proposal, including the draft guidelines, and the standard procedures of the Area Planning Commission for rezoning. If no NSC has been involved in the initiation, one will be required henceforth for further process. 5) The NSC and the HPC shall schedule public meeting(s) to review the proposed district and Preservation Guidelines. Based on this public input_, the HDC, NSC and HPC Staff will revise the Preservation Guidelines, district boundaries, etc. THE PROCESS OF REVISION SHALI, NOT EXCEED SIX MONTHS 6) The final Historic Preservation Guidelines, boundaries, etc. shall be distributed to the owners of all property within the proposed district. 7) A ballot shall also be provided to each property owner (one ballot per person regardless of the number of parcels owned) according to the procedures established by the Area Plan Commission for changes of zoning. Ballots must be returned within 10 business days. Ballots shall be counted and forwarded to the HPC for consideration of the Designation. 8) The HPC shall hold a public meeting for consideration of its recommendation to the Common Council on the establishment of the proposed LHD. If approved, the proposal is to be filed with the clerk of the appropriate council for legislative process ITEMS 6-8 SHALL NOT EXCEED NINETY DAYS AFTER THE FOREGOING EVENTS HAVE BEEN ACCOMPLISHED IT IS REASONABLE AND PRACTICAL FOR THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ORDINANCE (AS AMENDED) TO COMMENCE. IT IS NECESSARY AT THIS TIME TO CONSIDER WHO SHALL INITIATE THE ACTION AT THE LEVEL OF THE COMMON OR COUNTY COUNCIL. REQUIREMENTS OF THE ORDINANCE A Local Historic Preservation District may be established by the Common or County Council through the passage of an ordinance which may be initiated by: 1) A member of the Common or County Council. Nee. 2) A petition of the owners of 50% or more of the effected properties. 3) The Area Plan Commission. Following the initiation of this process, the proposal must be referred to the Historic Preservation Commission for its recommendation. The HPC does must hold a public hearing for the purpose of hearing comments on the proposed designation (with notice to all effected property owners) within 90 days of the referral and deliver its Recommendation to the Common or County Council. Failure to deliver a recommendation shall stand as a favorable recommendation. THERE IS A REDUNDANCY HERE OF THE STEP #8 OF THE HPC PROCEDURES AND THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COMMON AND COUNTY COUNCIL PROCESS. IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE EITHER TO INITIATE COUNCIL ACTION AFTER STEP #7 AND DELAY THE HPC PUBLIC MEETING FOR RECOMMENDATION OR TO COMPLETE HPC PROCESS AND TREAT THE PUBLIC HEARING REQUIREMENT OF THE COUNCIL PROCESS AS A FORMALITY. HOWEVER. BOTH THE HPC PROCEDURES AND THE COMMON COUNCIL PROCEDURES REQUIRE NOTICE TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WHICH IS CUMBERSOME AND EXPENSIVE. PRACTICAL PROCEDURAL NECESSITIES The responsibilities assumed by the Historic Preservation Commission Staff with regard to development of the proposed district(s) will include: 1) Inventory of structures, historical research, and review of ratings, etc. 2) Mapping and other visual aids required for presentation of the proposal. 3) Provide model preservation guidelines, and additional technical support. The responsibilities of the Neighborhood Steering Committee will be as follows: 1) Identifying and notifying effected property owners as required. 2) Conducting the preliminary public meeting(s) as required. 3) Development of specific preservation guidelines for the district(s). 4) Conducting ballot process for adoption of district(s) and preservation guidelines. 5) Distribution of preservation Standards books. 6) Establishment of Liaison Committee(s) for continuing relations with the Commission. WE IR ating 2. County 3. Survey No. ❑outstanding ❑SlgnlliCant l Notable ❑Contributing SII( St. Joseph 1141-598-55239 Historic Name 5. Townshipi Preliminary No. 14. Olivet African Methodist Church Portage 6. Address 7. Cityi 8. Quad Name 310 W. Monroe South Bend, IN 46601 South Bend West I INDIANA HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES INVENTORY State of Indiana Department of Natural Resources State Form 166221 Revised 1987 9. Common Name 10. Vialble 11. Endangered Explain I29. Historic Context(s) I Statement of Significance I Additional Description: This gothic style located ❑ Agriculture [N Architecture Greater Christian Tabernacle IK)Yes ❑No I❑Yes (XNo ❑ An 12. Ownership Owner's Address (if different) ❑ Commerce ❑PubI1C CXPrlvate ❑ Communications 13. Use Present Past la. Category 15. Surveys l Legal Protections 16. Location Notes I Legal Description 17. Condition 18. Integrity Residence ❑ ❑ IN Building(s) Lot 67, Martins Addition ❑ Excellent ® Unaltered Commercial ❑ ❑ ❑ District ® Good ❑ Altered Religious (N K) ❑ Site 18-3015-0544 ❑ Fair ❑ Moved ❑ ❑ ❑ Structure ❑ Deteriorated Date moved ❑ Oblect ❑ Ruins ❑ Indian 19. Time Penod(s) _ 20. Styles) Architect I Builder ❑ Industry I21. 1917 Gothic Revival Invention 1310 W. Monroe. This structure was remodeled under the leadership of Rev. George W. 22. SPECIFY ALTERATIONS i Law Removals I Replacement I Addltlons I Other Iwas completed in 1917. On February 4, 1917 the church was dedicated during the 23. DESCRIPTION 24. SITE PLAN ❑ Performing arts Stories ❑ Philosopny I In 1969, Olivet A.M.E. Church purchased the former 30. FOR STATE OFFICE USE ONLY (Plan Rectangular ❑ Religion gion (Foundation Concrete Chim: 1 offset brick. stone can. cz i s Jtretcher bond brick, then cut 6 dressed stone string course 1waus ❑ Transportation at floor of line. -� - 12/1 able, b5ackets ynder s�de eavgs, front peak has large wood Roof brae e s 6 woo beam 9a a our ine. CSSEE CONTINUATION SHEET 31. Northwest corner tower square shape crenllated roof line, cut ston4 32. information Sources Deed Book 46, 189; So. Bend Tribune: Dec. 1, 1985, pg. p. c3; Assessment Card: 1979; So. Bend Tribune, Porches cap, paired vents w/crnnr cot tq 133. Surveyor A K IAddedd overhanging light fixture on tower front, small metal side lanterns] by oor. I Affiliation Date Wind: A7J1 stained Elan, 1 large ci1rcle, cyt ton sur ou 9 O HPC 10/87 35. Revised by enin s quoins,. rect. w r vea . stone sills..rgsr nnnd �oaneelow, single casement. Doors: Ogee arched head surround radiating brick voussoir. ke srn �- stained glass panels, stained glass panes. Interior (Grounds IOutbuildings Commercial building to east and across street. hrjrk Todayy, the vacant church sits 20' from right field of (street in front. the Covelski Staduium. No. of Contributing Resources 26. No. of Non-contributing Resources 27. Environment I25. 1 0 I Commercial 28. Areas of Significance: I29. Historic Context(s) I Statement of Significance I Additional Description: This gothic style located ❑ Agriculture [N Architecture church, at 1310 W. Monroe St. served as the religious edifice of the Olivet African ATTACH NEGATIVE ❑ An (Methodist Church until 1969. ENVELOPE HERE ❑ Commerce ' ❑ Communications Ij Olivet A.M.E. Church was organized in 1870 under the direction of ❑ Community Planning ❑ Conservation (Rev. John Bund and nine charter members. The church laced y p great emphasis ❑ Economics Ion the religious and social improvement of local black residents. For many years it was ❑ Education Ithe only center of the social, religious, and political life of the city's black community.. ❑ Engineering ❑ Entertainment/recreation I Among the early charter members of the Olivet A.M.E. Church were Mr. 6 Mrs. Pharoah i Ethnic heritage tl black Ej Exploration ❑ (Powell, Mr. b Mrs. James Jackson, Mr. b Mrs. Jesse Birdgeman, Mr. James Hurst, Health I medicine IMr. J.B. Lott, and Mr. John Powell. ❑ Indian ❑ Industry I The first church was erected in the late 1870's under the direction of Rev. Bundy at Invention 1310 W. Monroe. This structure was remodeled under the leadership of Rev. George W. Landscape architecture i Law 1Benson. Late in 1915 plans were made for a new church. Work on the present structure ❑ Literature Iwas completed in 1917. On February 4, 1917 the church was dedicated during the ❑ Military ❑ Performing arts (Michigan Annual Conference. ❑ Philosopny I In 1969, Olivet A.M.E. Church purchased the former 30. FOR STATE OFFICE USE ONLY ❑ Politicsgovernment ❑ Religion gion (Lowell Heights Methodist Church at 719 N. Notre Dame Ave NR G Science (They sold this building to James 6 Bonnie Baxter. The SR, ❑ Social history ❑ Transportation (Baxters converted the church into a dance center, F Vernacular I Construction (boarding over stained glass windows and the like. NF ❑ Other CSSEE CONTINUATION SHEET 31. 1 1 6 6 I I 1 I 1 !* I I I 1 + 32. information Sources Deed Book 46, 189; So. Bend Tribune: Dec. 1, 1985, pg. p. c3; Assessment Card: 1979; So. Bend Tribune, December 21, 1971. 133. Surveyor A K Affiliation HPG Date 6/79 :3e. Revised by Affiliation Date Chris Nagy HPC 10/87 35. Revised by Affiliation Date tatement of Significance Cont'd: It was restored to a place of worship in the latter part of 1981 when the Southhold Dancecenter Inc. sold it to the Greater Tabernacle Christian Church. The congregation soon outgrew 310 W. Monroe and began searching for prospective clients. A tentative deal fell through when the city announced plans to build a baseball stadium nearby. In April of 1986, South Bend's Department of Redevelopment purchased the church from the congregation as compensation. Today, the vacant church sits 20' from right field of the Covelski Stadium. 1. Ratting ❑ Outstanding XISlgnlflcant I Notable I4. Historic Name Toth State Bank I6. Address 1601 Kemble ❑Contributing 11 County St. Joseph b. iownsnjp Portage 7. City South Bend 3. Survey No. 1417598-41054 Preliminary No. 141-598-65048 B. Quad Name South Bend West State Form 169221 Revleed 1981 9. Common Name 26. No. of Non-contributing Resources None 27. Environment 10. V191ble 11. Endangered explain 28. Areas of Significance: I29. Historic Context(s) I Statement of Significance I Additional Description: ❑ Agricwture IXJYes ❑ No I ❑Yes X31,10 _.._ Architecture 12. Ownership Owner's Address (II different) ❑ An I ❑ Public [3Private ($ Commerce ! ❑ Communications 13. Use Present Past 14. Category 15. Surveys I Legal Protections 16. Location Notes I Legal Uescrlptlon 1I. Londjuon 18. Integrity Residence ❑ ❑ ® Building(s) Lot 42, Thos. Beyerley's Add'n. Excellent C Unaltered Commercial El ^ ❑District Key 0 18-8054-2165 W❑r )9 Good UAltered minor Bank ❑ L ❑ site ❑ Fair C Moved Church ❑ I❑ Structure ❑ Deteriorated (Date moved Vacant X C3 Object ❑ Health I medicine Rutins 19. Time Period(s) 20. Style(s) 21. Architect I Builder ❑ Industry 1924 Neo -Classical ❑ Landscape arcnitecture . 22. SPECIFY ALTERATIONS Removals e New plain wood doorsl()Qditfons Wood panel radinOther �ic ❑ Military _ ❑ Performing arts (Replacement 191es a mAsi0nera de u a ost ❑ Philosophy I 30. FOR STATE OFFICE USE ONLY ❑ Politics l government 23. DESCRIPTION 24. SITE PLAN IStories Two ❑ Science I SR ❑ Social history = , IPlan Rectan¢ular ❑ Transportation t•/ �.,�.. -- !Foundation Cement, with terra cotta facing. Iwaus Orange brick wil:4 }ots of terra cotta enrichment --including multiple] -- (Roof Flat and pparapeted, with molded terra cotta cfornice. Terra cotta eaq ed I� u�utd i. pain anu.g deuni ueu�cieu ur iuuL Pacape�, aouve mautl Oor. I Porchesc IOpenmgs Laree front windows are 1/1 double hun¢ sashgs 141t•h dgtajje- moideb terra cocc urrounas S etrical loco a w>_th im o >, "Ttrr� 1 recess d entr y cFowne� y`an atc6d erra cottta entablature y ti Hi3liat d Interior with pivoting transoms. I IGroundsloutbuitoinds Corner lot. across from vacant Oliver school. �25. No. of Contributing Resources One 26. No. of Non-contributing Resources None 27. Environment Residential/Commercial 28. Areas of Significance: I29. Historic Context(s) I Statement of Significance I Additional Description: ❑ Agricwture ATTACH NEGATIVE ' Architecture ❑ An I ENVELOPE HERE ' ($ Commerce ! ❑ Communications I ❑ Community Planning ❑ Conservation ❑ Economics ❑ Education ❑ Engineering ❑ Entertainment I recreation ❑ Ethnic heritage ❑ Exploration I settlement ❑ Health I medicine ❑ Indian ❑ Industry ❑ invention ❑ Landscape arcnitecture ❑ Law ❑ Literature ❑ Military ❑ Performing arts ❑ Philosophy I 30. FOR STATE OFFICE USE ONLY ❑ Politics l government ❑ Religion NR ❑ Science I SR ❑ Social history ❑ Transportation F ❑ Vernacular l Construction I NF ❑ Other I ❑SEE CONTINUATION SHEET 31. UTM ' t i e= I I I I 1 1 I I 32. Information Sources 33. Surveyor Affiliation Date I Sue Booker HPC Sprint 1991 34. Revised by Affiliation i Date 35. Revised by Affiliation I Date INDIANA HISTORIC SITES AND �. I DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES J STRUCTURES INVENTORY (SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET) ` Sl ale Form 4288101-88) STATE OF INDIANA Name _ _ — _- - Survey I Site Number AdOress (Street and number) County 1601 Kemble Street "Toth Sl.dte Bank" -y , IOwnshlp Additional In lormauon (Use reverse side yon dtewing) The brick commercial building on the cornier of Kemble Street and Indiana Avenue was built in 1924 as the second Toth State Bank building in South Benci. It was designed by South Bend arI_nitect Walter W. Schnel.ier who was responsible for many cr•-Inlficant local structures including the Natatorium and the River park Theater and various churches in northern Indiana. Toth State Bank went bankrupt in 1930 leaving the building vacant. until 1941. ft then blietly became the main office of F.S. Ti H"Slt. Lumpany before bein<_r occupied by the South Bend Tool and Dir Lumpany's engineering klepartment from 1999 into the early It has since been briefly occupied by variuus other oTganizations and now t1 nil) is vacant. ihis property, lot 42 in Thomas E.A. Beyerley's Addition, stood empty from 11390 until the bank was erected. The property owner directly south, Louis Engel. had purchased lots 42 and 43 il. jwy v for +W0.00. He e•i.i,I, ,,, lie•u4•. •. � r'.,t I, In Ln,: i,ot ! I;: nr t, e,liLli '_e ntul y 011d r el,lined lot 4w until 1'=t._3. Thof.yr„r he�.�rld tit@ ploper Ly Lo ferdln•,Iid M1hUlirll, d dlrec Loi o1 Tut1I }t..lte Bink. Their transaction included an agreement that "no saloon or cult drink establishment be built here while grantors lLouls Engel] of the deed remained as owners of lot 43.” Miholich then LurneU the property over Lo loth State Bank with the sauce stipulation. loth State Bank was founded by George Toth. Theinstitution was ctlartered May 2, 1921 with original capital of $50,000.00. U1reCLors included IoLn, Miholich, Steve Garjacz, leophil Urobny, Joseph J. Kovacs and Frank Lassu. Lassu became president of the institution and was also president of Eagle Furniture Company at 200-241 Chapin Street. Drubny, a chiropractor, served as vice-president. Joseph Kovacs -was a local attornuy And -sec'. NU the bank as secretary-Lraasurar. George Toth was the bankcashier. ine Dank was a typical small lending and saving institution. The founder and directors were of the Hungarian community and the Dank lent money for many home morLgages in this predominantly Hungarian section of South Bend. The bank became insolvent ,bee bupp, Sheet 02) -lormauon $once, ---f Ry —_ INDIANA HISTORIC SITES AND d DEPARTMENT pF NATURAL RESOURCES STRUCTURES INVENTORY (SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET) J `'•.`�MarD :: state Form a STATE OF MINDIANMAA Name Address (Street and number) 1601 Kemble: Supplemental Sheet #2. City &"W Siie Number Additional Information (use reverse side for drawing) however soon after the beginning of the Depression. It was closed and placed in the control of the State Banking Department in the spring of 1930 before being liquidated. George Toth was born December 31, ibd- in Sporon Megge, Hungary and carne to South Bend in 1696. He married Elizabeth Kovacs in South Bend in 1919. The couple had three sons, George S., (Dr.]Louis and Charles and three daughters, Irene, Lillian and another whose name is unknown. Toth was involved in several businesses in addition to banking including real estate, insurance and tm elgn money exchange and was also a steamship agent. He died in the spring ut 196/. At the time of his death he was retired ds 1 district manager of the William Penn Insurance Company. `,ouch Bend Tool and Die's use of the building from 1949 into the 1970's was the structure's longest occupation. The: firm came l.t_ ',uutnSend lir.tn ilaytou. Ohio where it hAU u,_rIi (pvrdl.ing - nsince 1nlo uvll,.0uJ.kHfin_nI< .�p,,ny wo, rejuaLebclotwo othtI besi cu•sLomer•= , Studebaker and Bendix_ The company first built_ a one sloly, 130'x bu'plant On Che 19UU block 01 South Main. Additional plants wale later constructed in the city. Ine COmpariy also briefly rented part or the loth building t0 a manufacturer of fishing tackle, Stream-Eze Incorporated, a small T A gone IS l9b`i. South Bend lout and Die vaca Led here and discontinued operations entirely in South Send in 1963. Ine structure has since remained vacant except for br let occupation by a religious organization, The One God Apostolic Mission iJUleSla Misionera gpostolica qe un ulos). It is presently owned by Sherry and Joseph Chapo. Sources: Portage Township Assessor HeporLs:-ZN31 and-T9u`i.--- - - Plat Book 5:39. V1111) IJCMI I.1 Ly L l ItCLUr Deed Indexes 15.10.31; Deed Books 66,92,177. Intormauori.ed4tdeir Renu i r lbune 1, .'4-og; lz-3b-35; S-Z9-6/;-1-Z4--i..- South Bend News Times 1-24-29; 4-12-30; 11 Ie., r„ -U. 1. Rating 2. Couniy a. duivuy no. —• '❑Outstanding ❑Signlllcanl l Notable ®Contributing C/9 St. Joseph _141-45355-598 4. Historic Name 6. iownsnip rreuminary ivo. Portage 6. Address 7. City e. U_uau name 534 LaPorte South BEnd, IN. 46628 INDIANA HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES INVENTORY State of Indiana Department of Natural Resources State Form 168221 Revised 1966 9. Common Name10. Visible 11. Endangered Explain 87 Yes 0N ❑Yes ®No I12.Ownershlp Owner's Address (if different) ❑ Public 9 Private 13. Use Present Past lt. Category 15. Surveys I Legal Protections I;. vocation Notes 1 Legal Description 1%. (:ondition 18. Building integrity Residence1., ❑ [R Building(s) ® Excellent 2 Unaltered Commercial IR fid ❑ District ❑ Good ❑ Altered ❑ C ❑ Site ❑ Fair ❑ Moved ❑ ❑ ❑ Structure ❑ Deteriorated Date Building was moved ❑ Object ❑ Ruins _ 19. Time Period(s) (Dates) 20. Style(s) -�21. Architect I Builder- 1910 Period Revival Coercial Removals Replacement 22. SPECIFY ALTERATIONS"--"---- I(Atlditions Other " 23. DESCRIPTION 24. SITE PLAN tories 1 -- I Plan Square --•_---------_—.-___.--_- N (Foundation Poured concrete h Iwahs brick---- G�Roof P remidal v as halt shingl_e------------------_'----------------.--„� �. . Porches Openings Side by side sinele lieht casements. Vlxpd gash in front --_ Glazed door 1a/transom. nPG Grounds I Outbuildings Gas station w/DUMDS in fron[_parl4j.ng Il_Lear.. _.. I25. No. of Contributing Resources 26. No. of Non-contributing Resources — 27. Environment Residential 'z8. Areas of Significance: IStatement of Significance I Additional Description: ❑ Agriculture ❑ Architecture I ATTACH NEGATIVE ❑ Art ENVELOPE HERE ❑ Commerce _ ❑ Communications I — ❑ Community Planning I "-----"--"' - "-- -- -- __ ❑ Conservation _ _,- ❑ Economics I _- - - ---_ --- _ ---- ❑ Education -• ❑ Engineering'_----- ❑ Entertainment I recreation ❑ Ethnic heritage---`—'-"— ❑ Exploration I settlement ❑ Health I medicine ❑ Indian----- ❑ Industry ❑ invention - -- - - •-- _- 1 ❑ Landscape architecture ❑ Law ❑ Literature . C] Military ❑ Performing arts ----"--•—.--_'.. _-....--._-----__-. ❑ Philosophy I 29. FOR STATE OFFICE USE ONLY ❑ Politics I government "" ---"-- ------""-- — ”"- - "" ❑ Religion I --- — - '-- -- -- - -- NR ------- - ❑ Science SR C Social history ❑ Transportation I _--_..___-- _ F ❑ Vernacular/ Construction I NF ❑ Other l❑SEE CONTINUATION SHEET '+i OTM Reference law I 1 1 1 t W . 1 1 i t I 30. Information Sources 31. Surveyor Date 32. Revised by IA�:i�ia:ion Aiiaion ( Date - CN 4/87 CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT PROPERTY -- 1244 Lincolnway East South Bend, Indiana OWNER -- Dr. Ulrich Klopfer DESIGNATION -- LWE-LHD STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE/HISTORIC CONTEXT This former dwelling and retail shop is a contributing structure (rated C/10) in the Lincolnway East Local Historic District. The structure was built in 1898 in the Queen Anne Style. The house has undergone alterations such as the enclosure of porches, but retains sufficient architectural integrity to remain an important element of the historic district. PROPOSED CHANGE The Owner has proposed to restore the structure. The submitted application stated that details of the restoration were to follow. In the absence of the required documentation HPC Staff has, upon the instruction of the HPC and with notification to the Owner, prepared a Scope of Work which has been attached to the application. STANDARDS II.A.(1) Required Existing exterior building materials shall be retained.... II.A.(2) Recommended Whenever possible, the original building materials shall be restored. RECOMMENDATION This property has been vacant for several years and has deteriorated to the point of Code Enforcement requesting its demolition. Retention and restoration of this structure is highly desirable for the integrity of the Lincolnway East Historic District. Staff recommends approval of the application. David B. Duvall 9/12/94 RESTORATION PLAN SCOPE OF WORK 1244 LINCOLNWAY EAST September 11, 1994 SECTION I GENERAL A) All work and development shall be performed using the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Preservation as a guide. B) All work shall be completed on or before 90 days following approval at the behest of Code Enforcement. C) Alternate procedures are offered for the rehabilitation of the Southeast corner as follows: 1. Remove asphalt oversiding and restore existing wood siding condition. 2. Remove existing exterior wall and restore prior porch conditions as indicated by foundation conditions, including replacement of exterior wall to match others. SECTION 2 SITE WORK A) Demolition: 1. Remove enclosure walls at front porch, retaining features original to the open porch 2. Remove enclosure walls (including brick infill between piers) at rear porch, and porch located at southeast corner (see alternate 2 above. 3. Remove existing roofing and rotten or deteriorated roof sheathing. 4. Remove existing synthetic and asphalt impregnated oversiding. 5. Remove existing deteriorated gutter and downspout materials. 6. Remove intrusive wall alterations such as through the wall air -conditioners. 7. Remove inappropriate and or broken storm glazing. 8. As work proceeds, all wood materials found to have substantial rot will require removal and or treatment. B) Iron Fence: - 1. Clean, repair & paint existing fence. a. Where sections of fence are broken, they shall be mended or replaced with material to match existing (panels may be exchanged from other site locations). b. Where fence material is missing (or moved), replacement matching metal fence shall be installed. C)'Trees 1. Trees may be pruned as recommended by reputable tree technician. No trees shall be removed without specific Certificate of Appropriateness. SECTION 3 CONCRETE A) Patch deteriorated concrete walks and steps, etc. SECTION 4 MASONRY A) Foundation and chimney repair. 1. Foundation and chimney brick which is to remain shall be repainted with lime/sand mortar (low Portland content). 2. Brick which is broken or missing shall be replaced with matching brick. 3. Masonry assemblies which are found to be unsound shall be reconstructed to their historic appearance with salvaged original or matching material. SECTION 5 METALS A) All flashings, hardware, etc. as required by other aspects of the Scope of Work. nnP,(- 1 Kr,biON-AlWN FLAN SCOPE OF WORK 1244 LINCOLNWAY EAST SECTION 6 WOOD & PLASTIC A) Replacement 1. Structural wood such as plates, sills, studs, joists, rafters, and sheathings shall be replaced with new wood where found to be deteriorated or with significant presence of rot. Replacement material shall be treated wood where it is directly exposed to weather, masonry, or soil. 2. Decorative wood features e.g. turned columns, window and door surrounds, mouldings, and trim shall be retained. Where minor deterioration is present, features shall be stabilized and synthetically repaired. Decorative wood features which are substantially deteriorated, damaged, or missing shall be replaced with new material which approximates the typical conditions which remain. SECTION 7 THERMAL & MOISTURE PROTECTION A) Roofing 1. Following structural repairs, new asphalt shingles over felt underlayment shall be installed. B) Siding 1. Following removal of oversiding, significantly deteriorated or missing wood siding shall be replaced with new wood siding of similar dimension. C) Gutters 1. All eave conditions shall receive half round metal gutters with downspouts placed as required. SECTION 8 DOORS AND WINDOWS A) Doors . 1. Existing doors shall remain. B) Windows 1. Existing windows shall remain and be repaired as required. a. Repairs may include: replacement of broken glass, sash track replacement, hardware replacement, and replacement of significantly deteriorated sash parts (wholesale window replacement shall require review and approval by the Standards & Maintenance Committee. 2. If the Owner desires; thinline storm windows may be installed which conform to the design of the windows. SECTION 9 FINISHES A) Painting 1. The structure shall be low pressure power washed, scraped and otherwise prepared for painting. 2. The structure shall receive sealants and prime coats appropriate to its constituent materials. -5vtZ,31d 3. The structure slt� receive finish coats in a classic Downing color scheme with minimum of 3 colors accenting features such as siding, trim, sash, & shingle gables. SECTION 10 to 15 not applicable SECTION 16 ELECTRICAL A) Provide service and distribution for structure as required for minimum maintenance. page 2