Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 1996'AGENDA OF THE REGULAR MEETING of the HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular monthly meeting County Commissioner's . • 7:30 p.m. ,Conference Room Monday, July.15, 1996 7th Floor County City Bldg I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Public -Hearing "L A. Certificates of Appropriateness 1.,301 South;Sunnyside - Slate roof replacement'.. 2. 519 Edgewater'Place - window and door alterations IV. Regular Business A. Approval of Minutes 'l. June 17, 1996 B. Treasurer's Report C. Correspondence D. Committee Reports 1. Budget & Finance 2. Legal 3. Historic Districts a. South St. Joseph Street (Monroe'Park) / 4. Historic Landmarks a. New recommendations for Local Landmark designation 1) 210 North Michigan"Street - Palais Royale 2).1631 Lincolnway West - concrete block house 3)-513 Harrison Avenue (1010 Polmongle Ct.) - ibid 4) 701 S. Chapin - Oliver Powerhouse; n �\ o. �] b. Status of recommendations to Common Cncil --! 1) 30750 Inwood Rd. ✓ 2) 16581 Chandler Blvd. � 3) 501 West Colfax 4) Leeper Park'LL proposal 5) Brick Streets - 5. Standards &•Maintenance 6. Personnel C a E. Staff Reports ' 1. C of A Staff Approvals a. 802 Arch Ave. - roofing - in-kind replacement b. 1201.Riverside Drive -removal & repllcement of tree 2. DHPA Grant status a.-1995-96' 1) National Register nominations 2) Economic Benefits Study b. 1996-97 1) Grant Start-up 2) Activities 3. Legal a. violation letters �( 1. 725 Linconway East 2. 971 Riverside Drive 3. AEP (East Jefferson streetlight) 4. Hardy Manuel Log House 5. Price Family Cemetery 6. 701 Pennsylvania Street - LL • V.'Old Business VI. New Business VII. Hearing of Visitors VIII. Announcements & Miscellaneous Matters IX. Adjournment le CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT a APPLICATION - 1996-0703 PROPERTY -.301 South Sunnyside South' Bend, IN - 01MR -- Norman .& Deborah Buchman DESIGNATION -- LHD-EW - RATING --.0/10 STATEMENT'OF SIGNIFICANCE/HISTORIC CONTEXT Whitcomb & Keller built this H.R. Stapp designed Tudor Revival house'in 1930. Guy Ii. and Edith McMichael owned the house from 1931 to'1935. Born.in South Bend in'1882, Guy was-president.of the Citizen's'Trust Savings Bank where he. had worked since graduating High School. Between 1936 and 1938 the house was occupied by George & Mary Davie. Beginning in 1938, the house was owned by Solomon and Mollie Sandock. Solomon was a partnerwith his brother Barney in B&S Sandock a large furniture store located at 1217 West Washington Street. PROPOSED CHANGE The Owners propose to remove the existing slate roofing from the house and garage and 'replace it with OakRidge II shingle.selected to match the slate,in • appearance. All copper flashings are to remain and be repaired or replaced; with like copper. STANDARDS The Standards for the East Wayne'Stre'et District state: II.B.2 - Recommended - Whenever possible, the original shape and material.of the roof should be restored. Particular effort should be made to retain materials such as slate, tile, Iand other unique materials not commonly,found in new construction. Roof covering which is deteriorated beyond repair shoula. be replaced with new material which matched as closely as possible -the original in composition, size, shape, color, and texture...... RECOMMENDATION The slate roofing on this house is a_softer slate ashas been found at several houses in the East.1-layne District. The slate has for some time presented a maintenance problem as the slates have come looses from their attachments. The present slates are square cut in varying width giving a variegated texture and laid with the butts aligned in even courses.. The Owners have selected a shingle to.match the color of .the slate and to maintain the variegated texture of the roof which is appropriate to the Tudor Style. Staff recommends approval of the application. DBD 7/10/96 • t . CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT APPLICATION -- 1996-0705 PROPERTY..-- 519 Edgewater Drive South Bend, IN OWNER -= Bill & Laurel Cochrane DESIGNATION -- LHD-EP RATING`- C/9 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE/HISTORIC CONTEXT. There is very little historical research on file in the HPC office -on this property. Whitcomb & Keller.apparently built -this house in 1919. A quick, survey of available city,directories found no occupants at the house until 1926 whena salesman"named Lee F. Tannehill and'his wife Lillian are found -"listed at this..address. The garage at the rear first appears in the Assessor's records in 1949. The house is basically a two story frame dwelling in -the Foursquare style•with an unusual hipped roof which features small pediment shaped -vents near the peak facing the front and rear and forming'a short ridge from front to back'. A flat roofed one story porch and smaller entry vestibule cross the front. There'is a small flat roofed vestibule at the rear. From.assessor's data it'appears that all these plan -features are original. However, details of original construction are generally obscured by aluminum siding which covers most trim. Windows are six -over -one double hung type. PROPOSED CHANGE The Owners propose to remove the existing storm door at the rear vestibule and . side over this area. They also propose to replace the fixed glazing -at the rear wall of this vestibule with a new and larger window designed to match ,other windows in the house in size and appearance. They further propose to replace the existing double hung window pair at the Kitchen sink with,a new wood window designed tomatch the original. STANDARDS The Standards for the Edgewater Place District state: II.B.1 - Required - Existing or original windows and doors, including sash, lintels; sills, shutters, decorative glass, pediments,. hoods, and hardware shall.be'.retained or when deteriorated beyond repair, replaced with duplicates of the existing or original. II.B.3 - Prohibited - Existing or"original windows, doors, and hardware shall. not,be discarded.when they can be restores and reused in place. New window and, door openings which would alter the scale and proportion of the building may not be introduced..... RECO:'^1ENDATION , The proposed alterations -are all in keeping with the character and scale of the house. The storm door location proposed for closure is presently ambiguous with the absence,of its'door behind and is discreetly to the rear of the building with negligible public visibility: The fixed glazing at this vestibule is likewise discreetly located 'and its replacement and -enlargement will make this window more consistent with other portions of the building.'The Kitchen windows were found to be Staff recommends approval of the application.. DBD 7/10/96 X2'3 At some time a previous owner „\ fabricated and installed a fixed 69 sash window in this wall. We 14-3 would like to remove it and replace d wrth one more in keeping with the style and ptopotion of the other windows in the hous& �T I. 8 t z The interior door was removed 1 year: ago and framed in. The storm door was left in place. We want to remove the aluminum storm door and side over to match the emdsting — ER We want to replace these windows which are deteriorating with new themmopane on o o I? match the e>asting in o I e size, color and mu itin pattern. II ,3 I IL 13' 4-1 "1 14 -� E ,Y N 4'LAI 5' L i9P] 'WI I • • n 0 0 0 �a3 G� � CEJ. U 0 0 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING of the HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Special Monthly Meeting County Commissioner's 7:30 p.m. Conference Room Monday June 17, 1996 7th Floor County -City Building I. Call to Order John Oxian, president of the commission, brought the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. II. Roll Call Commission members present. were: John Borkowski, Richard Bullene, Martha Choitz, Adrian Fine, Catherine Hostetler, John Oxian, & J. Edward Talley. Commission staff present was: David Duvall, director and Aladean DeRose, counsel. Also attending the meeting were: Jed-Eide, Precious Jeltz and Lesley Levitsky. III. Public Hearing A. Certificates of Appropriateness 1) 1996-0531, 715 Riverside Dr. Fence alterations Mr. Duvall presented the Staff Report and distributed photographs. Mr. Duvall further indicated that, he had' spoken to Mr. Vogt,. the applicant, earlier in the day and that Mr. Vogt had indicated that he would not be at the'meeting. Mr. Duvall provided information not available at the writing of his report that the fence at the north property line which is -the location of the sharp fence edges is actually the property of the adjacent property owner. That property is presently vacant; the previous occupant having recently passed away. Mr. Vogt did seek and receive permission to mount his lattice on this fence. The fence at the south side is on the Vogt's property. Mr. Talley asked if this meant that there'should be two.applications. Mr. Duvall indicated that he felt the present .application to be appropriate as the lattice was on his side of_ the fence. Mr. Duvall indicated that Mr. Vogt did not have authority to remove the northern fence which has the sharp edges altogether. Mrs. Choitz stated that her understanding was that the question of safety was not up to the commission to determine, but only appropriateness to the historical context. Mrs. DeRose clarified that the commission does not'assure the safety of anything which is approved but that the commission may approve as appropriate a measure which is undertaken for purposes of safety. Fr. Bullene- stated that he had driven by the location and noted that the other chain link fences extending forward of the setback did not interrupt the continuity of the -yards as the lattice does. Mr. Borkowski asked whether the fence with the sharp edges had been installed upside down with the turned under wire at the bottom. Mr. Duvall stated that this was probable but that he had not examined the fencing at the soil level and that the fence was quite rusted and probably quite old. Mr. Fine suggested that Mr. Vogt might be able to bend the sharp edges of the fencing under. Mr. Duvall noted that the lattice had been applied to the chain-link all along the fence line and that the issue was not limited to the front yard setback. After some discussion about how to address the safety issue in the motion Mr. Oxian moved that the commission deny the application with. instruction to Staff to suggest the bending under of sharp wires to the applicant. Fr. Bullene stated that the applicant had made the fence more substantial by adding more obviously visible material questioning whether this would be considered appropriate in locations where fencing is not otherwise prohibited (i.e. the front setback). Mrs. Choitz stated that an appropriate lattice fence would be more substantially constructed. Mr. Oxian • returned to the issue of safety stating that the situation at the rear, yard would be no more or less safe than at the front. Mr. Fine reiterated that the relative safety was not the measure of appropriateness. Fr. Bullene indicated that his concern for appropriateness was much greater in .the front setback - where fencing .is not otherwise appropriate than in the sides and back where fencing is ordinarily allowed. Mr. Oxian called the question. The motion failed a plurality with only Mr. Oxian voting yea and no nay votes. ' Fr. Bullene 'moved that the commission require removal of the lattice forward of the setback line and recommend to the owner that he investigate a permanent, fencing solution which is more appropriate for the neighborhood context. Mrs. Hostetler seconded the motion. Mr'. Talley questioned the partial approval of the act undertaken without COA. Mrs. DeRose stated that the commission needed to make determination of appropriateness without regard to the rules and regulations for process which were violated by the construction without COA. The motion was passed with four yea votes, Mr. Oxian and Mr. Borkowski voting nay and_ Mr. Talley abstaining. AU OFb _)� 2) 1996-0531-8 1121 East Wayne Street - new storm door Mr. Duvall presented the Staff Report and distributed photographs, drawings, and catalog information, noting that the replacement of the main entry door had been approved by staff as in-kind replacement. Mr. Eide, the applicant, made further presentation, stating that the storm door had been designed to be sympathetic with the style of the house and the entry door. At this point • Mr. Talley absented himself temporarily. Mr: Fine .moved that the commission approve the application for installation of'the new storm door. Mrs. Hostetler seconded the motion. Fr. Bullene noted that, he had observed that the door had been installed already. Mr. Eide stated that the storm door had been installed when the other door- had been but that it could be easily -enough removed without damage to the structure. Mr. Duvall clarified that neither door had been installed before the applications were received and the in-kind replacement approved and that.Mr. Eide had informed him at the time -of the application that all installation would be performed at the same time. The motion was passed unanimously (with Mr. Talley absent). 3) 1314 East Wayne Street - roof alterations Mr. Duvall presented the Staff Report and distributed photographs. Mr. Fine asked what the proposed roofing material would be. Mr.' Duvall responded that the proposal called for rubber ice -dam material to be applied as underlayment with asphalt shingle selected to match the slate installed over it. He further observed that because of the low slope the roofing material will not generally be visible. Mr. Fine asked whether there would be guttering. Mr. Duvall responded that the original guttering of this sunroom had been and integral box -gutter which has previously been built over. The new sloping roof will be built over this material and the existing 'soffit and crown mould conditions retained. There will thus be no gutter on the sunroom. The existing box gutter will remain enclosed in the structure. Mrs. Hostetler moved that the commission approve the construction of a low -sloped hip roof with Prominence green asphalt shingles over the existing flat roof at the sunroom on the west side of the house. Mrs. Choitz seconded the motion. Fr. Bullene inquired about the contractors proposal stated that soffit and facia are to be white • aluminum. Mr. Duvall stated that. he had confirmed with the contractor that the aluminum covering of the facia found in his proposal was not to be included in the work. The motion was passed unanimously. 4) 1333 East Wayne Street South - Landscaping Mr._ Duvall presented the Staff Report and distributed site plans and photographs. Mrs. Choitz moved that the commission approve the application for • proposed landscaping as described on the._s-i e pl n w th the exception that the pole light be tabled pending furthe/pecifications Mr. Fine seconded the motion. Fr. Bullene noted that the Sites plan mad -pit vAiffidult to discern the proposed new planting from existin lan �I�ngs due�to�)he labeling. He also suggested that with regard to the post-lamp�fi t thVZere two styles of lamp presently existing on the from and sides of the house which might serve to guide selection of the new fixture. Mr. Oxian indicated that there were several catalogs. of street light fixtures which are appropriate to the period available. The motion was passed unanimously. B. Second Reading of Recommendation for Local Landmark Designation 1. 521 East South Street Mr. Duvall presented the Staff Report and distributed photographs. Mr. Oxian observed that this motion came as a recommendation from the Landmarks committee and therefore need only a second. Mr. Fine seconded the motion. Mr Duvall noted that the owner, Lesley Levitsky was present. Mr. Oxian inquired if she wished to make a presentation. She declined. Mrs. Chiotz noted that Ms. Levitsky had been omitted from the history. The motion was passed unanimously. Mr. Oxian inquired who had sold the property to Ms. Levitsky. She replied that she could not recall .the man's. name but that the property had been acquired with the intention of developing the whole contiguous block which has subsequently been built -out with apartments. 2. Brick Streets T'Mr Oxian directed the attention of the commission to the booklet prepared by • Mr. Talley in connection with this nomination. Mr. Duvall presented the Staff Report. He noted that he had not .prepared. photographs*-- for the streets in question. Mr: Oxian noted that this proposal came to the commission as a committee recommendation & therefore required only a second. Mrs. Choitz seconded the motion. Mr. Oxian noted a discrepancy between the brick sizes described in Mr. Talley's report and the Staff report. Mr. Duvall allowed that this was a typographical error and that the proper dimension should read 3X4X9. Mr. Talley noted .that the sections of street as described in Staff comments were not quite correct. The following corrections were made regarding the locations where the brick pavement is still extant. Lafayette Boulevard should be corrected to read from Marion Street to Bartlett Street and LaMont terrace should be extended to Lafayette Boulevard. Manitou Place from Forrest Avenue to Park avenue also needs to be included. These sections are at some variance to the sections which were originally installed as described in the staff report. Some discussion ensued regarding these- locations and other pavements which radiate off of these. It was concluded that the proposal should read Lafayette Boulevard from Marion Street to Park Lane. Mr. Fine recommended that Staff attach a map to the proposal for the sake of clarity. Mr. Oxian called the question. The motion passed unanimously. IV. Regular Business A. Approval of Minutes 1. May 20, 1996 Mr. Oxian corrected that in discussio • not .stated "unless o9ly the building that the May minutes be approved as motion. The motion passed unanimously. B. Treasurer's Report There was no treasurer's report. n of the North Pumping Station, he had was to be designated". Mr. Fine moved corrected. Mrs. Choitz seconded the • C. Correspondence Mr. Duvall indicated that the office had received notification of a Presidential Executive Order calling on Federal agencies to locate their ` .facilities in Historic Buildings and Districts. He had forwarded a memo of this information to the County Commissioners and the -Department of Economic Development for their information in attempting to.find tenants or occupants for publicly owned historic buildings or other planning projects. Mr. Oxian suggested sending a similar memo to School City as they also own National Register properties. D. Committee Reports 1. Budget & Finance Mr. Oxian indicated that this committee should meet in the near future to prepare for the County and City budget hearings in the fall. 3. Legal Mrs. DeRose reported no legal activity. 4. Historic Districts A) Monroe Park Mrs.- Choitz discussed the meeting with Monroe Park residents which she had attended with Mr. Fine. Ms. Jeltz and Ms. Levitgky were present representing this group. Mr. Fine' said that he had made a presentation, about what the commission does and what a Historic District is. .He said the meeting was • fairly short being on a Friday evening. Carter Wolf and Tom Eddington were also in attendance at the meeting. Mr. Wolf,had stated a hope, to relocate the Center City Associates office into the "Fat Daddy" building on Michigan south of Western Avenue. Mr. Oxian stated that he had once considered including this commercial block in the Monroe Park boundary but now believed that they should be separate districts. Ms. Jeltz noted that her property was contiguous with commercial properties and would find advantage in having the commercial area designated. Mr. Oxian pointed out that this would have implications for both the preservation guidelines which would need to address the very different commercial context, and for the ballot process, where a whole different constituency would need to be courted and satisfied. Staff was instructed to send the Historic District application -form materials to Ms. Levitsky. 5. Historic Landmarks a. Recommendation s to the County Council Mr. Oxian reported that Olive Twp. School 412 and the Mishawaka Reservoir Caretaker's house will come before the County Council in the next month. 501 West Colfax has been sent to Common Council but has not yet come up for first reading. b. Leeper Park Proposal Mr. Oxian asked why this item was on the agenda as a committee report. Mr. Duvall noted that the public hearing had occurred and second reading had been tabled at that time. The second reading for a vote was therefore to be found in the old business section of the June agenda. c. Landmark Proposals 5. Standards & Maintenance Mr. Fine indicated that the committee had no report. • 6. Personnel Mr. Duvall reported that he had still not received notification regarding the 1996 funding from the Department of Economic Development. He noted that Marcia Nicholls who has administered the CDBG program will be leaving the City and a new individual is assuming these responsibilities. Therefore, there_ may be some delay in processing our agreement if and when it arrives as the new administrator learns his job. E. Staff Reports 1. Mr. Duvall reported the following C of A Staff Approvals a. 1102 East Wayne Street - in-kind replacement of privacy fence. b. 1121 East Wayne Street - in-kind replacement of front entry door. 2. DHPA Grant status a. 1995-96 1. National Register nominations: Mr. Duvall reported that there was. a bureaucratic complication with the placement of the North Pumping Station, Northern Indiana College, and St. Casimir's Parish nominations on the July agenda of the State Historic Preservation Review Board because the notification of public officials had been less than 30 days prior to the public hearing. .It was the determination of Frank Hurdis at the SHPO that the public hearing could be limited to a future resolution but that new notices should be sent applying to the October agenda of the review board. Mr. Oxian observed that this would give sufficient time for consideration of the site issues at the North pumping Station • discussed at the May meeting, 2. Economic Benefits Study Mr. Duvall expressed some exasperation with having not received ,this report delivery of which had -been had been promised within 30 days of the April 15. completion date prescribed in the agreement. He has only contacted Mr. Leader's phone message service and has not had 'direct communication during this period. Mr. Oxian suggested a penalty in the Contract. Mrs. DeRose stated that if no penalty was included in the contract, then it was too late to insert one unilaterally. Mr. Duvall stated that there was no penalty clause but that there was provision for termination with notice and liability for non-performance. Mr. Talley inquired as to whether the commission had a draft of the report. Mr. Duvall stated that portions had been received for review but not a whole report., Mr. Fine asked what the deadlines for the DHPA funding were. Mr. Duvall stated that June 30 was the closing date on these expenditures for purpose of the DHPA claims and -that the Appraisal Group were aware of this. Mrs. DeRose was instructed to draft a letter to the Appraisal Group with threat of exercising the termination and liability clauses of the agreement. options. b. 1996-97 Mr. Duvall reported. that DHPA had still not rescheduled the start-up meeting but had given verbal approval to commence drafting the solicitations for the proposed project consultants. 3. Legal 4. Hardy Manuel Log House Mr. Duvall reported on the archaeological investigations being made at the Easterday farm, noting that there had been ample press coverage by print and television media. He further reported that the investigations were proving to be somewhat disappointing in that clear indications of residential habitation • were not obviously forthcoming, calling into question whether the cabin was in its original location or had been originally used as a residence. Mr. Talley asked whether the plan to relocate the structure to Potato Creek State Park had been finalized. Mr. Duvall responded that such a move was in no way certain and that. these investigations may. aid in overcoming. some of the difficulties. Most notably, ,the SHPO will need to be persuaded that such a move does not constitute a negative impact on the historical resource to approve -use of the park. V. Old Business A. Adoption of Landscape Standards Mr. Oxian called the attention of the commission to the Landscapes -.Specific Standards and Criteria distributed for this meeting. These standards are to apply to any Local Landmark designated as a Landscape. Mrs. Choitz asked where these standards came from. Mr. Talley directed her to the last page which credits the Massachusetts Historical Commission with development of the Standards with assistance from the National Park Service. Mr. Duvall Observed that at -the last meeting there had been discussion of providing boiler -plate language similar to that found in the LandmarK Standards. -In Reviewing those Texts Mr. Duvall had found no reason to alter them in any way to fit the proposed landscape. Mr. Oxian stated that these were the best and most specific set of standards that the Landmarks Committee had found for this purpose. Mr. Oxian requested a second for the Landmarks Committee's proposed standards. Mr. Talley seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. • B. Leeper Park Local Landmark Designation - second reading Mr. Oxian noted that some portions of the park are already landmarked as'the North Pumping Station but that the present proposal would designate the entirety of the park. Mr. Talley directed the attention of the commission to the booklet which he had distributed at the opening of the meeting containing the a history of the park, a timeline, various exhibits including photographs. and photocopied documents, materials on criteria for the consideration of cultural"landscapes, and the Landscapes - Specific Standards and Criteria for Leeper Park. Mr. Oxian briefly reviewed the way that the general landscape standards just adopted -have been applied to the particular location by filling information in at predetermined locations. Mr. Talley indicated that his understanding was that there would be no opposition from the Park Department in proposing this designation. He also indicated that Malcolm Cairns from Ball State University would be willing to support the nomination by letter. Mr. Oxian observed that these standards had been reviewed with representative of the Park Department and Mr. Talley added that they had been provided to the Park Board- as well. Mr.s Hostetler moved that the commission recommend designation of Leeper Park as a Local Landmark to the Common Council. Fr. Bullene seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Oxian asked if there was any other old business. Fr. Bullene inquired after the status of the fence at 1414 East Wayne Street, and what could be done about it. Mr. Duvall replied that .to his knowledge, the fence was still standing and that it might be possible for the Building Department'to pursue it further. Mr. Oxian asked what could be done. Mrs. DeRose indicated that last recourse would be to file suit but that this should be avoided if possible. Mr. Talley,inquired as to whether this was bad public relations? Mrs. DeRose replied that in addition to the P.R. aspects there is also considerable delay involved in,pursuing the court action and noted war stories from colleagues in trying to pursue such actions. She did however concur that the violation was clear and that she would send a second letter. Mr. Oxian asked what had transpired regarding the log cabin on Rose Road. Mr. • Duvall reviewed the previously established chronology and questioned what remedy the commission might wish to seek. Mrs. Hostetler asked if the commission received reports from police or fire departments regarding, fire calls. Mr. Oxian asked about the construction of the new house at this location. Mr. Duvall stated that we'had never determined whether a permit was pulled for .that. Mr. Borkowski' recalled, that the permit records were maintained by contractor rather than street address. *Mr. Duvall added that he believed the events to be too long past to, find records at the Building Departments. Mrs. Choitz questioned what standing the commission had in requesting redress. Mr. Duvall observed no arson investigation had occurred at the time of the fire and that the commission did not have the power to launch a criminal investigation. He further noted that if the commission wished to seek and injunction to require the owner to reconstruct a cabin that this action could be taken. Mrs. DeRose added that there would be.a burden to prove intent.. Mr. Borkowski asked if there was any procedure to put into place to avert such situations. Mrs. DeRose indicated that there was no requirement that fire departments notify the commission but that such action could be requested. Mrs. Choitz recounted her experience of attempting to inform the Warren Twp. volunteer fire Dept. of the local landmarks in their jurisdiction meeting with apathy and ineffectualness. Mr. Duvall suggested that this issue had never been researched in the Tribune records. VI. New Business Mr. Oxian reported that he had toured the Oliver Plant complex and was considering nominating complex for the National_ Register and the Power Plant • as a Local Landmark. , VII. Hearing of Visitors VIII. Announcements & Miscellaneous Matters none IX. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. •