HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 1997AGENDA OF Tg1; EggULAR MEETING
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COP'MISSION
Regular monthly meeting County Co'mmissioner's
7:30 p.m. Conference Room
Monday, January 20, 199f/�., 7th Floor County City Bldg
I.
Call to Order
."II.
Roll Call. -
III.',Public
Hearing
A. .Second Reading Local' Landmark designation
1) 52939 U.S. 33 North —Blake Gardans.
B. Certificates of Appropriateness
1. 521 River Avenue - replacement of -basement windows with glass
block
2. 1202 Lincolnway East - demolition of Carriage House
3._ 105 South Main - Third St. Joseph Co. Courthouse - entry vestibule
;IV.
Regular Business
A. Approval of Minutes
1. December,16, 1996
B. Treasurer's. Report
C. Correspondence ,
D. Committee Reports
1. Nominating Committee
2. Budget & Finance
3. Historic Districts
•
a. Project Access
b. Madison Hospital
4. Historic Landmarks '
a. Status of-recommendations-to.Common Council
" 1) 501 West Colfax
2) 51.3 Harrison Avanue-'•..,-
3) 1631. Lincolnway West
b.'Other Landmark Proposals.
1) 701.S. Chapin.- Oliver Poerhouse
2) 804 N. Lafayette - Madison School.
5. Standards & Maintenance
.6. Preservation Week 1997
E.', Staff Reports
1.,C -of A Staff Approvals
a. 947 Riverside.Drive - Installation of head pump compressor
b-105 S. Main - Third County.Courthouse part A (see.above)
2. DHPA Grant status
a.1996-97
V.
Old"Business
1. 66251 Cedar Rd. - Demolition of Summer Kitchen outbuilding
VI.
Newt Business -
VII.
Hearing of Visitors
VIII.
Announcements, & Miscellaneous !,'atters
Ik.
Adjournment
4
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRTATENESS STAFF REPORT
APPLICATION -; 1996-1203
is
PROPERTY 66251 Cedar Road
Wakarusa, IN (Madison Township, St. Joseph County)
OWNER -- Arlene Stump et al (Lloyd Geyer heirs)
DESIGNATION -- Local Landmark
RATING -- S/11
Note: the survey cards prepared in 1979 on the card type then used
for such do not indicate the survey rating. The table found in the
Summary Report lists the Bickel log house at this site separately
but groups the other house and farm buildings together with a
collective rating.
STATEMENT OF SIGNTFTCANCE/HTSTORTC CONTEXT
(See attached history)
This site was apparently first occupied by George Bickle (Bickel ?) who
constructed the .log house in 1853. According to a newspaper account of unknown
origin found in our files, Mrs. Ida Geyer stated that she recalled being
afraid of the log house which later became her home .in her youth and that it
had 'at some time been moved. We may infer however that this relocation was
within the bounds of the farm property, and.probably not -of a great distance.
According to accounts, the early Bickle and later Geyer families resided in
the log house until 1895 when the present farmhouse was constructed.
The "summer house" presently under consideration is dated on the survey
card as being constructed in 1895. However we have found no evidence
confirming this date which corresponds to the known construction date of the
farmhouse which was and is quite ornate though modest in scale. There is
little physical similarity between the main residence and the "summer house"
which are nery close to one another. By inferrenc it is very unlikely that
they were built by the same peopl, at the same time.
Several of the Geyer children were apparently born in the log house and
there is no indication of any other structure having been transitional between
these residences. However the 2/2 window style wide facia under the gable
eaves and other features would suggest a date earlier than 1895 for the Summer.
House building. It may be'possible that this building was constructed as an
office for the sawmill operation which proceeded and enabled the farm
operation or that this building was relocated to its present site. The
interior features of this building give no indication of plaster or other
interior finish at any time.
It would appear from the organization of data on the survey cards and
summary report that the log house is given special emphasis and that tlir, barn
is considered an outstanding rpsourcc. The ,ignif_icancP of the house which has
been extensively altered and it the summer house" which has been somewhat:
altered and is more humble in character appears to be of an ensemble nature as
contributing to an unusually complete farmyard set -piece.
PROPOSED CHANGE
The owners propose to demolish the sinnmer house
CERTTFTCATR OF APPROPRTATENESS STAFF REPORT
• STANDARDS
The landmark standards for group B Landmarks state that:
D. Demolition
Historic Landmarks shall. not be demolished. When a Landmark
poses a threat
to
the public safety,
and demolition is the only alternative,
documentation
by
way of photographs,
measured drawings, or other descriptive
methods should
be
made of both the exterior
and interior of the landmark. The
person or agency
responsible for the
demolition of the landmark shall be responsible
for
his
documentation.
The commission has further prescribed the following requirements for
demolition by resolution. (see attached Demolition Standards)
RECOMMENDATTON
With regard to the criteria noted above for the justification of
demolition, the owners have submitted a continuation sheet to their
application (see attachment) describing this building's state of deterioration
and their opinion of its level of hazard. They have further submitted an
estimate for the rehabilitation of the structure. Staff does note that the
scope of work described in this estimate includes items not noted in the
description of the state of deterioration (i.e. vinyl siding) and that the
various proceedures proposed are not itemized.
Subsequent to the continuation from the December 1996 meeting of the
Historic Preservation Commission, Staff visited the site to observe the
existing conditions found there.
With knowledge that the foremost significance of this landmark is its
integrity as a whole farmstead inclusive of a settler's log -house, a later
residence of a prosperous farmer, the summer -house in question, a bank -barn, a
smoke or milk -house, and several other farm outbuildings, Staff briefly
observed the general conditions of the several contributing buildings. Most
biii.ldings were found to be in excellent to good condition.
The log house is in a state of deterioration as was known from previous
correspondence with the owner(s) and from previous examination. It appears
that some work has progressed upon the recommendations which had been provided
by the commission at that time, mainly the removal of badly rotted material
establishing the extent of such deterioration. The main barn appears to be
excellently maintained.. The farmhouse, though lacking in integrity due to
previous oversiding is in good repair and has recently received a new roof. It
retains its original windows and ornamental. tracery.
The building presently under consideration was found to be in a precarious
state of deterioration due to obvious neglect of maintenance which has been
performed at the other. structures. Though deterioration is evident at most
features of the structure, the most extensive and problematic deterioration
was found at the foundation level. Subsurfar_P stone masonry was in evidonr_e at
some locations but most of the visible bearing consists of 10X10 solid wood
sills in contact with soil and subsequently rotting. In some cases, these
members are notched which might indicate previous use at another structure or
an earlier raised floor. Door conditions would indicate that the latter never
existed. The general indications are that the interior of the building was
never finished beyond its present conditions. The large opening at the rear of
this building- now provides for an overhead door and it is not discernible what
the prior appearance of this wall was. The floor is now concrete poured in
place using the mudsills as formwork.
CF.RTTFTCATR OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT
• That the structure is deteriorated is obvious. Tt is most unfortunate that
the most threatening deterioration is related to the mud sills which are at
once the most problematic repair required and most fundamental to the
structural integrity of the building as a whole. The specifications provided
with the cost estimate for the building's repair are extremely brief and Staff
is not certain that this estimate reflects only the necessary and sufficient
repairs required for maintenance of the building. Neither .is it clear that the
indicated repairs would meet the requirements of the Landmark. Standards.
However it may not be inferred from the previous statements that repairs which
are sufficient and meeting, standards would incur greater expense. The costs
and procedures are simply not sufficiently described nor itemized to allow
such analysis.
As noted above, the survey would indicate that the principal significance
of this building is as part o a farmyard ensemble. However Staff believes the
building to be of some individual significance due to its appearance of being
of earlier construction (second to the log house at this location) and its
uniqueness of style and character and possibly of use. Though similar
structures may exist, Staff is not presently aware of any other buildings in
the County which are similar in design. Staff therefore believes that
demolition would cause a significant loss to the community, especially
regarding the Landmark Criteria reflecting educational value and the
possibility of yielding information for future research. Staff therefore
recommends denial of this application.
Staff recognizes that the financing of maintenance and repair of this and
other historic buildings at the site may not realize immediate economic return
• and wishes to emphasize the 'willingness of the commission in assisting the
owners by whatever means' are available in financial arrangement's which may
benefit the property. Staff has verified that these buildings would be
eligible for Federal investment tax credits applied toward historically
appropriate rehabilitation. However, this would require plaement of the
property on the National Register of Historic Places and the attendant delays
and expenses required in so doing. Staff could assist the preparation .of such
a nomination. Other benefits might accrue from the granting. of conservation
easements which could yield income tax deduction(s) for charitible
contribution.
As a last resort, Staff would recommend relocation of the structure in
preference to demolition. As noted above, the foundation problems are the most
threatening, and these could be remedied as part of a relocation program.
Relocation would also retain the building itself which is unique as noted
above. The building is quite attractive and of sufficient size as to
accommodate independent use as a small residence or ,hop. Should demolition be
allowed, the thorough documentation of the building should be required. This
would make a good Historic American Building Survey (NABS) project for College
students.
DBD
1/8/97
Approved by the Historic Preservation Commission, 3-16-92,
DEMOLITION STANDARDS: LANDMARKS/HISTORIC DISTRICTS
Demolition. Demolition of a historic landmark or significant
building in a historic district is disfavored and requires a
certificate of appropriateness. Such a certificate of
appropriateness shall be granted only if the owner demonstrates
by submission of substantial, competent evidence that:
a) The property in its current condition is uneconomical or in
a substantial state of disrepair` deterioration, or structural
instability not created by the owner;
b\ Historically appropriate renovation or rehabilitation is
either technically or economically impractical; and
o\ The owner has investigated and considered all reasonable
elternatives to demolition, not simply the least expensive
alternatives, and that all such alternatives such as sale,
rental, or lease of the property have failed or with reasonable
likelihood will fail or will not earn a fair economic return on
value.
Continuation Sheet
• 66251 Cedar Road
Thi s i s a proposal to demol i sh the summer house on the farmstead at
66251 Cedar Road. The building has deteriorated to the point that
it is unsafe. There are no available means of financing the
repairs that would be necessary to restore the building.
The farmstead was owner -occupied (Lloyd and Mary Geyer) at the time
the ordinance was adopted. The farmstead is now rented out by the
current owners, the children of Lloyd and Mary Geyer, and the
childrens' spouses.
The summer house has been used for many years as a garage. Its
foundation has deteriorated enough so that the building represents
a hazard, especially to the children that now live on the property.
Among other needs in addition to rebuilding the foundation, the
roof is leaking and the shingles need to be replaced.
The estimated cost for restoring the building is $14,762 (see
attached estimate). No funds are available for restoration. The
rental income from the property barely pays the expenses for
maintenance, repair and taxes for the house and barn. Priority
must be placed on maintaining the house as a safe and comfortable
place to live. As can be expected, the maintenance requirements
for the house are substantial. For example, it was necessary
recently to completely reshingle the roof of the house.
The current owners note that they were not parties to the original
agreement to put the summer house into historic preservation, and
that the preservation ordinance was neither recorded in the land
records of St. Joseph County at the time the ownership of the
property was transferred to them, nor is it currently recorded.
Owners:
Arlene Marie and Leighton Stump, Wakarusa, Indiana
Jimmie Dale and Eleanor J. Geyer, Greenville, South Carolina
Richard Eugene and Patricia M. Geyer, Mt. Airy, Maryland
Frederick Pierce and Judy Geyer, Columbia City, Indiana
•
•
ESTIMATE
62851 ASH ROAD PHONE (219) 633-4528
WAKARUSA, INDIANA 46573
Stump And Geyer
I
Remodel garage on Cedar Rd.
9/6/96
Jack up garage.
New footer, wall, and concrete floor.
Service door, Overhead door, windows,
vinyl siding and soffit.
Roof deck and shingles.
Material, tax, and labor $14762.9)
Not included:
Permit and trash removal
Estimates Will Be Honored For 30 Days
Charles F. Geyer is numbered among the prominent agriculturists
of Madison township, the proprietor of Park Farm. He was born in
the neighboring county of LaPorte on the 15th of October, 1857, and
his father, Jacob Geyer, had his nativity in Stolsbury-on-the-Rhine,
Germany, as did also his father, Jacob Geyer, Sr. The last named died
at the age of 96 years. One of his sons was an officer in the French
army for 40 years, and during that time participated in the Franco-
Prussian war, making a gallant record as a soldier. The son Jacob
grew to manhood's estate in the land of his birth and received an
excellent educational training in his native language, but at the age
of 18, in order to escape service in the army, he made his way across
the Rhine and on a sailing vessel to the United States, six weeks elaps-
ing ere he reached the harbor of New York. From there he made his
way to Toledo, Ohio, and thence on foot to Mishawaka, St. Joseph
county, Indiana, where he assisted in the building of the Lake Shore
Railroad. After a time he went to LaPorte, where he secured employ-
ment as a fireman, but later turned his attention to farming and for
five years resided on a farm in German township, St. Joseph county.
Removing thence to a farm in Marshall county, Indiana, he spent the
remainder of his life there, dying in 1904, at the age of 76 years. His
political views were in harmony with the principles of the Democratic
party, and his religious affiliations were with the Lutheran church.
Mrs. Geyer bore the maiden name of Regina Nusselman, and is a na-
tive of Alsace, France, a daughter of Joseph Nusselman. Thirteen
children were born to them, of whom seven grew to years of maturity,
namely: Charles F., whose name introduces this review; Caroline Al-
berts; Jacob, a resident of Penn township; Anna, the wife of Levi
Hahn. of Madison township; Joseph, a resident of Bremen; David, a
farmer of German township, Marshall county, Indiana; and Ed, who
lives in Mishawaka with his mother. She has rounded the Psalmist's
span of three score years and ten, a lady whom to know is to revere
and honor.
On his father's farm in Penn township Charles F. Geyer was earl'
taught the work of the farm, and the educational training which he
received in the public schools was supplemented in later life by exten-
sive reading and travel. During a period of 14 years he was en;;aged
in the saw -milling business in Madison and German townships, owning
at one time a portable mill, but this was destroyed by fire. He is now
the owner of a valuable farm of 160 acres in Section 36, Madison town-
ship, known as Park Farm, where he is extensively engaged in agricul-
tural pursuits and stock raising.
On the first of September, 1886, Mr. Geyer was united in marriage
to Ida Strope, who was born, reared, and educated in Madison town-
ship, a daughter of A. J. and Catherine (Minky) Strope, prominent
early settlers of the community, and the former of whom is deceased.
but the latter is still living. They reared a large family of children.
Ten children, five sons and five daughters, have been born to Mr. and
Mrs. Geyer, namely: Grace G., Walter W., Emma E., Mabel I., Dora
C., Roscoe C., Warren W., Layton Miner, Edna F., and Lloyd D'. The
children are receiving excellent educational advantages, and two of
them have successfully passed the eighth grade. Air. Geyer has been
quite an extensive traveler during his lifetime, and to him was accorded
the pleasure of visiting the World's Fairs at Chicago, Buffalo. ?\ ,
York, and St. Louis, Missouri. He is independent in his political affilia-
tons, and he justly merits the high regard in which he i. held.
•
CERTTFTCATE OF APPROPRTATENESS STAFF REPORT
APPLICATION -- 96-1216
PROPERTY -- 521 River Avenue
South Bend, In
OWNER -- Ernest Hursey
DESIGNATION -- Edgewater Place Local Historic District.
RATING -- C/g
STATEMENT OF STGNIFICANCE/HISTORIC CONTEXT
This American Four—Square was built, c.1920 by Whitcomb and' Keller. The horn -'e
has been altered by the addition of asbestos shingle siding, ,ilumi.num storm
door- and windows, and replacement concrete porch steps. It is rated C/f.in
the Indiana Historic Sites and Structures Survey.
PROPOSED CHANGE
The owner wants to install 4 (four) glass block windows in the basement.
STANDARDS
The Preservation Guidelines for Edgewater Historic District state:
1) Required — Existing or original windows. and doors, including sash,
lintels, sills ... and hardware shall be retained, or when deteriorated beyond
rf-pair, replaced with duplicates of the existing or ori 'ainaI
2) Prohibited — Existing or original windows, doors and hardware shrill not be
discarded when they can be restored and reused in place. New windows nr door
openings that would alter the scale and proportion of the building may not be
introduced. Inappropriate new window or door ,features ,such :is aluminum
insulating glass combinations that require the removal of original windows and
doors may not be installed. ,
RFCOMMFNDATTON
It should be noted that the above request is part B of the Certificate of
Appropriateness. Part A, the removal of the roofing and installation of 150
felt, new metal edging and 25 year asphalt shingles, frosted -r-,y in color,
was approved by Staff. The standards do not specifically address glass block
as a material. However, Staff found the existing window material to be
generally sound and found no imperative for their replacement. Furthermore,
should replacement be required, installatinn of similar sash would be
indicated. Staff recommends denial of the Part. B of this, application.
DBD
1/12/97
•
CERTTFTCATI? OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT
APPLICATION -- 97-0106
PROPERTY -- 1202 Linc_olnway East
South Bend, In
OWNER -- Anne & Carrold Kempf
DESIGNATION,-- Linco.lnway East Local Historic District
RATING -- C/10
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFTCANCF/HTSTORTC CONTEXT
The house at this lot was constructed in 1902 in the Queen Anne or. Free
Classic style for John Rohrer, a businessman involved in South Bend real
estate. It is rated Contributing (10) in the South Bend Summary Report of the
Indiana Historic Sites and Structures Inventory. The house retains its
original massing and general character although it has been altered with the
application of 'overriding. The survey data. card also notes a two story
carriage house with jerkin head roof gables as an accessory structure on this
site. The Sanborn insurance maps for the city of South Bend do not include
this locale until their 1917 edition. At the time of that pub:licat:ion, the
carriage house is shown at the proper location on this site. This establishes
the carriage house as a contributing structure'in the district, by inference,
probably original to the site development of the present house.
. PROPOSED CHANGE
The applicant seeks to demolish the carriage house.
STANDARDS
The Preservation Guidelines for Lincolnway East Historic District state:
IV.A.1 Required - Code requirements shall be complied with in such a manner
that the existing character of the building is preserved.
V.A. - Building in the district should not be demolished. However, where a
building poses a threat to the public safety and demolition is the only
alternative, documentation by way of photographs,. 1 (one) measured drawing, or
other descriptive.methods should be made of both the exterior and interior of
the building.
In addition to the Guidelines adopted by the district residents, the IIPC has
Oil 3/16/92 further defined the Demolition Standards for establishipg
reasonable cause for demolition as t:h(, only alternative to preservation and
requiring the applicant to submit evidence that:
A) The property in its current condition is uneconomical, or in subsatantial
state of disrepair, deterioration, or structural instability not created by
the owner;
B) Historically appropriate renovation or rehabilitation is either
technically or economically .impractical, and
C) The owner has investigated and considered al.l. reasonable alternatives to
demolition, not simply the least expensive alternatives, and that al.l such
• alternatives such as sal -e, rental, or lease of the property have failed or
with reasonable likelihood will fail or will not earn fair economic return on
val ue .
CERTTFTCATE OF APPROPRTATENESS STAFF REPORT -
RECOMMENDATION
This application repeats the request submitted in September of. 3.995 and
recorded. in commission records as application #1995 0912-2. In conversation
with the applicant concurrent with the submittal of this new application, the
applicant indicated that the Division of Code Enforcement was once again
citing the property for its defects. Conversation with the Director of Code
Enforcement confirmed that they had in fact issued a routine follow—up letter
on 12/20/96 noting that the previously noted code citations had not been
addressed but that no new citations had been made. She further indicated that
though an enforcement hearing might be scheduled, she did not feel that the
condition of the property merited scheduling a demolition hearing.
Review of the citations of the division of code enforcement finds cause for
building repair as follows but does not indicate the requirement of
demolition:
1) Failing roof rafters and collar ties. (Contribute to wall deformation —
see item 4)
2) Tree growing against -south foundation.
3) Several areas of damaged siding and corner trim.
4) Walls out of plumb.
5) Worn shingles, holes in roofing and exposed decking.
No further citations are made regarding foundation, doors, windows, .stairs,
etc.
Staff has visited the site to establish. whether conditions had changed and
found' that the exterior appearance of the building is fundamentally the same
• as when the issue was addressed in late 1995.
At that time the Standards and Maintenance Committee accompanied by an
independent architect participating on behalf of Southhold Restorations Inc.
found damage presumably by automobile impact the one corner .and general
deterioration of siding surface due to unmaintained siding (i.e. failure to
paint and caulk). There appear to have been several alterations of door and
window conditions through the buildings period of use.�It would also appear
that the deterioration of the building is due to neglect of the most basic
requirements of maintenance, especially regarding the roof which contributes
to the other areas of deterioration, excepting the impact damage which .is also
unrepaired.
At the time of the previous application, the applicant_ provided statements
from R.L. Kl.itzke PE regarding the structural stability of the building and an
estimate of construction cost totaling $9,295 to repair. Demolition cost
represented through their attorney were staged at $2,000 to $3600. Thus the
Owners estimates establish a net cost- benefit o[ $5695 to $7295 of demolition.
On the other hand, these figures submitted by the applicant indicate a net
cost of between $4.74 and $6.08 per Square foot to rehabilitate the building.
It 'should here be noted that Brian Crumlish, the architect inspecting the
property for Southhold believed that the costs to bring the building into
compliance with building code would be approximately $5000 or a net cost
liability of $1400 to $3000 dollars heyond the cost of demolition which may be
otherwise stated as a net cost: of $1.17 to $2.50 per square foot to bring the
building into compliance with the city's building code.
MUTFTCATE OF APPROPRTATE NESS STAFF REPORT
In terms of building cost or development cost, none of these net repair costs
stated above should be considered to present a hardship to the building .for
its continued maintenance and use.
Regarding the value of the property for preservation, the applicant's attorney
stated in his letter of 11/20/95 that "the status of the building as a
historic Landmark or otherwise "'significant"' building is questionable. The
building has no intrinsic architectural features or other designs which are of
such significance to make the rehabilitation either desirable or appropriate".
Staff must respond that the building clearly dates from the period of
significance for the Lincolnway East Local Historic District which has been
duly considered by the Historic Preservation Coymiii scion at the timo of its
recommendation and subsequent designation by ordinance which provided for
ample public hearing and comment. The structure is relatively unaltered and is
therefore a contributing structure within this district reflecting the
character of the district in its period of historic significance.
Although the applicant' indicated. at the conversation with Staff which
initiated this application that she had tried and failed to make contact with
Southhold Restorations regarding the possibility of assistance in relocation
of the building to another location, no such indication has been made
regarding any of the other required alternatives such as sale, rental,or
lease of the property. Although relocation might be approved in preference to
demolition, such relocation to a similar context within the dAtr.ict would be
preferable to relocation out of. the District.
• For all reasons stated above, Staff recommends denial of this application.
Should the commission choose to approve this application, Staff recommends
that the documentation called for in the Preservation Guidelines be prescribed
as accurate measured drawings of a professional standard.to be provided by the
applicant as a condition of release of the Certificate of Appropriateness and
notes that these procedures may increase the costs of demolition as above
presented.
DBD
1/10/97
0
11%
CFRTTFTCATE OF APPROPRTATFNESS STAFF REPORT
APPLICATION -- 91-01.01
PROPERTY -- 105 South Main Street
South Bend, In
OWNER -- St. Joseph County
DESIGNATION -- Local Landmark
RATTNG -- Outstanding (0/13)
STATEMENT OF STGNIFTCANCE/HISTORTC CONTEXT
Construction on the third county courthouse began on October 31, 1896 and the
building was completed in .1898. The building was designed by the Chicago
office of Shepley, Rutan, and Coolidge, a Boston firm, and constructed by
James Stewart & Company. The supervising architect for the project was George
Selby who remained in South Bend and practiced briefly with Ernest Young. ),The
style of the building is Academic Classicism as had been popularized at the
Columbian Exposition in Chicago. It is constructed substantially in
limestone. The Dome is constructed of iron frame with terve-cotta leaf
pattern shingles. The dome is presently in the process of being replicated in
precast concrete under a previously issued Certificate of Appropriateness.
PROPOSED CHANGE
Construction of glass enclosed vestibule accessory to west: entry curtain wall..
. STAND.ARDS
The Preservat:ion Guidelines and Standards for Local Landmarks state:
Group B
C. Additions to Landmarks should not detract from the original form and unity
of the landmark and should not cover singular examples of architectural
detail. Additions to the landmark should be added in a manner which does not
disrupt the visible unity and overall appearance of the site. The proportions,
materials, and ratios of the existing structures should be carried through in
the addit.i.ons....
C.I. Structure - Necessary structural improvements, where safety demands,
should be accomplished in such a way as to cause minimal visual change to the
original style and construction.
C.2. Construction and Style - All i,Tork should be done in the arcliit:ectural
style and in a technique compatible with that of the original structure....
C.3. - Materials - Additions and improvements; involving any new material in
the building should he of the same mstori.11 .as the original. It should be the
same size and texture. An alt ornrlt:l.ve [natr,rinl m. -iv bf- :111e1.,7ed ] f -;t
duplicates the or. igi ma l . V
RECON MENDATTON
This application represents t:hr' second or, "B" part of a two part application
which seeks to replace the existing curtain wall glazing at the west wall of
the courthouse and acid a vestibule, .all for purposes of energy conservation.
• The "A" portion regarrli.ng the in-kind replacement of the existing curtain wall
with new materials of identical visual character but superior weather.izat:ion
features was approved by Staff.
CERTTFTCATE OF APPROPRTATENESS STAFF REPORT
• The proposed design for
elimination by which the
the commission Staff and
of appearance and ease o
enclosed vestibule struc
construction system as t
features and proportions
structure to which it is
•
•
he vestibule was; submitted after a process of
architect submitted various design alternatives to
the County Engineer for r.omment regarding preferences
construction and maintenance. The proposed glass
tyre is exflcuted with the same materials and
e curtain wall and is so composed as to reflect the
of the central bay temple form fac.adr of the original
accessory.
Although this alteration is not associated with the requirements of safety as
indicated in the standards, Staff recognizes the imperative for anergy
conservation and the maintenance of interior comfort in the building. The
proposed alteration does not immediately affect: the historic: features -of the
building, being exclusively attached to the more modern curtain,wall to which
it is,clearly compatible. Staff therefore recommends approval of this
application.
DBD
1./9,/97
U � s
t. K�rnovC t:xlti'r,u� Riul.n:'�i;R.Ttilr,awr.,.t. L �
f,�LALiNti !• iLN'GL+t i�10b14b: .. ;' , ,' ._ . � x
MidOLKlt 'NKvkltj"p/.c Q LL I
tirY�YTCMI C,L.A21n1A� f�t'AG.�,I.1!�i�QWh.te. `e. .��„ < Y•: i
t�►.�tcY ><v`iL�rL. �,.aaLog't,i�t�E; : vr�;,�t�,uL,ax�r , . I _
G�+C�s 4Af�'t`t't�rLtnUtl+i''tiGt7h.
A, 1!-'"6w+GVra� �EF4h"nNGI 4•1h4�1A1fJi?.yrj�,T4411�t94�.S � � i i
111 M'C'r-'Ma " ,nt41/a.\. 1-J�\V �ftit'+�i►WM I•Il�.'p�'i►d4. I
y� I
/iLUM1NUM GuLTAay.�Whl4':. •�i?O yCKtfh �'Stta'C�ac>� �. � � .
GU1FtNniNraL yYb1YM bH1C.L +1#y. �AtwkL�GG9 .' h ! � � i �
1yY j H `L Nut NU t`Avtu�c To \VKHdT+*ND
fr1;Q`t� \Y44.it�LPh.QN. � t G{L•1J,J,)�S"Cd• 1`hi\,l• j=1N4Sk -�L_�.: ' I. �_U
Isi
We
�LRLtNA : i" },..abUIJ�TlU4 :T}N�eO,?�Lh4h� \5�f/ j � I
�;%hFE-fY/<<IJb \�/I�Qil�w" fSSE�tIO 1r+d GlJ•4TM1-t- 1 , i � i
\vitt Sy6'SL+M. 'lt Titvrtr0 �ra,^t q� _
NGe 0f4ae55 1,401omNq 1�Y 'CUdt ltL�t INPhL- j
d16 /.PP'4NMo LQJPa., �i4"IICA'3•i 3fv, t^%" lh*.ttb" 1
I
6KKUgHT : MGOSL vr`1 6,f W`�.o VV-Ax-C$ INC. -,-;
.f
�hSP`CrtO, IQ
t M.lAit� . 'i/{t rS tGYI' .VJw'iLiCot1C - ZooLiJE;�
+tCO. M,Lt. 'All 1{,1° 'ilr.1'CG�.4+►.r�IGT`{'CILMM�J. i
! \ W w, Nu,v.
t �!
-'tul'bet,Y'Ce iNGP.I SIC },p(tc+.+Rt7U14t.. i
V%OtS 61VL, .,Mtt\.F»staM k,4 dtt Z,nifnt� ,G�• - _C�`
t1AV�9\Vl.,e+� : fAN,L;�•'P-lbL : M,Q •f'nN1�t..'I°krWle `� � � I
dyAVliMi. a4owL- • 6aVd£-FiE + (r'CkY•t MA,' Q, -170.
N,Nt� Wi - r•asd 3'.ti?: ixjc ;- f i4to t a►f�'use _- " �` l=Xtb ttt 1t� hut"raLT vhT
i C
--
us 3
- —
C
L
�
;
cri
6 lu
X N
tu
�XI".rftrr+G .{rt�p5 (btot''C�.�
1'L
GUZthsN'Nn.w �„�-....'------� .•'�XirlClt.�f.�
bY`y'CCYn � tµ i f`� y.it�rtE�+�dfit�
iM1hU1.l�"tfs.4 �Ol.UMNS �' \Vh4_�.
/ f
1`
�r f
/ /SWM, hKY L.ttilt'r >
_ / G
_ __._.._ _.. � � i1�L�W"tJtCUM• f i
�.1 iSl�GtlJi
6'iYtPS�
s i
i I
! �-tatJi�NG1 rJ
r--- `- N��Y A�uM. �Pant�.✓r
�• � dp7p
! ,. � Nt<�v atii.iil ri • �1.i :iGY
i
j 7a7o ' t07p
iView
�: t.o
y+t� a 1'O+i �Vt�rT �.Y'�ylj' thl(JE.
�l
GUZthsN'Nn.w �„�-....'------� .•'�XirlClt.�f.�
bY`y'CCYn � tµ i f`� y.it�rtE�+�dfit�
iM1hU1.l�"tfs.4 �Ol.UMNS �' \Vh4_�.
/ f
1`
�r f
/ /SWM, hKY L.ttilt'r >
_ / G
_ __._.._ _.. � � i1�L�W"tJtCUM• f i
�.1 iSl�GtlJi
6'iYtPS�
s i
i I
! �-tatJi�NG1 rJ
r--- `- N��Y A�uM. �Pant�.✓r
�• � dp7p
! ,. � Nt<�v atii.iil ri • �1.i :iGY
i
j 7a7o ' t07p
iView
�: t.o
y+t� a 1'O+i �Vt�rT �.Y'�ylj' thl(JE.
OF THE REGULAR MEETING
of the
PRESERVATION CO^LMTSSION
Regular Monthly Meeting
7:30 p.m.
Monday December 16, 199
II. Roll Call.
Commission members present were: John Borkowski, Martha
.Janeanne Petrass, John Oxian, J. Edward Talley, & Jerry
Commission staff present: was: David Duvall, director
County Commissioner
Conference Room
County -City Building
Also attending the meeting were: Stephen Sharper and Donald Sporleder
Certificates of Appropriateness
1) 1996-11203, 66251 Cedar Road - Demolition of "Summer house"
Mr. Duvall reported that the applicant had provided a waiver of the statutory
limit as the lateness of the application in concert with poor weather
conditions had.made proper attention to the proposal problematic. Mr. Oyian
tabled the application and directed the Standards & Maintenance committee to
visit the site to assess the merits of the request, noting that the site's
principal significance was as an intact assemblage of farm buildings.
A: Approval of Minutes
1. November 13, 1996
Mr. Oxian submitted notes on
November minutes be approved as
The motion passed unanimously.
vo corrections. Mrs. Choitz moved that the
corrected. Mr.. Borkowski. seconded the motion.
C. Correspondence
"Ir. Duvall indicated that the DHPA's li^t: of qualified consultants for
development of National Register nominations had been sant to John Friedlino
regarding his intention to dov-1op the Singer- building on N les Avenue as a
tat credit project. An information packet on conservation easements had been
provided to Doug Way of First Source Bank regarding their rehabilitation of
the old Farmer's Security Bank Building. Copies of Survey cards had been
provided to Law Engineering Environmental Services .for environmental
assessment along Edison Road. A .letter was sent to.the German Township Trustee
re--arding t.hf larking lot encroachment -rt the Local Landmark at 53731. Portage
Rd. owned by the Lauber family adjacent to the Trustee's office. He noted that
a response from thQ Trustee had been received stating that the information
disseminated by the I:auber family was incorrect in some respect but that the
parking lot.did encroach their property and was to be removed.
• D. Committee Reports
1. Budget & -Finance
Mr. Oxian stated there Ivas no business to report
3. Legal
There was no new legal report.
4. Historic Districts
Mrs. Choitz stated that there was no nets information to report. from Project
Access and yielded to Mr. Talley to report on the meeting 'with Madison
Hospital. He stated that several residents of River Bend Historic District had
met with the Director of Madison Center, the architect of the new Children's
Center, Dr. Shore (acoustical consultant, IUSB), Ann -Carol Simon (Asst. City
Attorney) and Councilman Lueke. He felt the meeting had been productive. Dr.
Shore is to work with the architect in further defining the source of the
noise problems.
5. IIistoric Landmarks
Mr. Oxian, chair of the Landmarks Committee, reported that He and Mr. Duvall
had met with Kathleen Dempsey of Code Enforcement and that they had agreed to
request the Common Council to hear the ordinance which has been there tabled
to designate 501 West Colfax as a Local Landmark.
Mr. Oxian then reported on the status of recommendations previously made by
the commission:
• A) Leeper Park - Leeper Park was established by the Common Council as Local
Landmark.
B) Brick Streets Local Landmark Ordinance
Mr. Oxian reported that a meeting with the City Engineer, his staff, Mr.
Talley, Mr. Duvall and councilman Lucke had met to discuss this
recommendation. Since the city has an established policy on the maintenance,
and repair of existing brick street pavements which provided continuing
protection for them, he had agreed to withdraw the proposed ordinance. The
City Engineer is to send a letter to the commission affirming this policy and
guaranteeing that the commission will be notified in the event of any change
to this policy in the future. Mrs. Sporleder expressed concern over spot
repairs and Mr. Oxian and Mr. Talley indicated that such repairs were covered
in the existing policy. Mrs. Choitz inquired .about proactive maintenance
policies such as scheduled turning of the existing brick. Mr. Oxian indicated
that this was not discussed. Mr_, Talley observed that he felt the proposal had
included too many streets' and that a lass ambitious ordinance may have met
less resistance from engineering Staff. Mrs. Sporleder noted that she had
observed very efficient and thorough rehabilitation procedures for unit.
m"l ;onry p'Ivemeut5 In Ftlrol which included ta!,,i_n- up paving units rRgrading
-ind compacting base and relayin- the vni n in quite orderly process. Mr. 0::ian
observod that Engineering Staff lv:id alloioed that these pavements were the
easiest to maintain. Mr. Talley added that the necessarily skilled workmen for
such repairs were difficult to find. Ile indicated that this was an
illustrative case of the benefit of meeting on a regular basis with the staff
of: other City departments. The Sporleders indicated that the Masonry
Institute was prepared to offer assistance in providing specifications for the
• proper procedure,, for brick pavements. Mr. Talley indicated that Larry
Spradlin in Engineering was probably the best contact for effectively
communicating these ideas *to the Department. Mr. Talley indicated that there
mi -lit be an opportunity for a seminar in this issue.
4. 513 Harrison Avenue — Mr. Duvall stated that he had not yet had the
• opportunity to prepare the ordinance for this nomination. Ms. VanZant, thLr
administrative assistant has been doing additional historical research ()Ti this
nomination.
5. 1631 Lincolnway West. Mr. Oxian indicated that he had met with Code
Enforcement who had agreed to withhold their demolition 'contract for 30 days
to provide opportunity to explore alternative means of rehabilitating the
structure.
c. Standards and Maintenance
Mr. Fine, chair, reported that the committee had met to discuss the
recommendations for repair and or replacement of the Leeper Island retaining
wall. Two suggestions were recommended for each of stabilization only or
replacement of whole sections. Stabilization could be approved as
installation of grout. tubes or curbs at the base of the wall. For wall
replacement, reconstruction according to original specifications or
replication by casting concrete molds taken from sound sections of the wall.
These suggestions would amend the Standards adopted for Leeper Park. Mrs
Hostetler seconded the motion to so amend these standards. The motion passed
unanimously.
Mr. Fine requested that committee members caucus with him after the meeting to.
arrange to visit the Cedar Road COA application.
E. Staff Reports
1) Staff Approvals
• Mr-. Duvall reported the following Staff approvals:
a. 938 Riverside Drive — removal of a fallen tree on the riverbank
b. 971 Riverside Drive. — In—kind replacement of a stair. railing.
2) DHPA Grants
a) 1996-97
1. Regarding the DHPA Grant status, Mr. Duvall reported that the Executive
Committee had met and determined to award the projects to three separate
cOnsUltants as follows:
The nominations bundle for Colonial Gardens District, South Michigan Street
District, Wenger. Farmhouse and Hansel Center and the New Deal Context Study
are to be awarded -to Glory—June Grieff.
The East Bank multiple property nomination is to be awarded to the Westerly
Group.
Tile Leeper. Park nomination is to be Awarded to Malcolm Cairns.
3. Mr. Duvall reported having met with the ad—hoc group for the development of
Eu.st= Race heritage tourism. The technical Issistanco from the Dept. of
Commerce .and the Nation,.il Trust for which the groilp had applied throu-h the
parks dep.7rtInent.is now !1va11'ille' and the -roup is reassessing the goals and
the product which m:Iy be achieved with this technical assistance.
4. Mr. Duvall reported that he had discussed continuing employment with Melody
VanZant, communicating' the uncertainties of the CDBG grant: funding and that
she had indicated willingness to continue this employment- arrangement. Ile had
• requested that Ms. Derose dr.af-t another annual employment agreement for the
coming year.
5. Mr. Duvall observed that there once again was a conflict of the third
is
Monday with Presidents Day in the 1997 calendar. Mr. Oa:ian indicated that
Mondays had proven to be convenient and directed the February meeting to be
scheduled for the followin3 Monday, February 24.
V. Old Business
There was no old business heard.
I
VI. New Business
Following the motions to proceed on Landmark designations from the November
Meeting, Mr. Oxian directed first reading of the following recommendations for
Local Landmark Designation:
1.) 701 South Chapin Street - Oliver Powerhouse
2).804 North Lafayette Blvd. - Madison School
3) 52939 U.S.33N - Blake Gardens
Mr. Oxian requested that 7�'r.s. Sporleder report as Chair of the special
committee which was appointed at the November meeting to meet with the
developers of the proposed .project at this location. She indicated that the
committee had met and subsequently had met with Mr. Williams, the developer,
and his attorney Mr. Ken Fedder. She reported that the committee recommended
moving to second reading for recommendation of this landmark: proposal at the
January meeting of the commission. Mr. Talley seconded this motion. THe motion
passed unanimously.
B. Nominating Committee
"r. Oxian appointed Mr. Borkowski to chair the committee to nominate officers
for the 1997 year. IIe also appointed Mr. Talley and Mrs. Hostetler to the
committee which was instructed to report to the January meeting.
C. Preservation Week
Mr. Duvall indicated that he had discussed with several members of the
commission the desirability of planning activities for Historic Preservation
Week which is from May 11 to 17.
Mr. Oxian observed that years ago this occasion had been exploited for the
presentation of Landmark plaques. Mr. Fine suggested that a committee be
formed.
Mr. Oxian suggested that he would prefer volunteers for a special committee to
plan activities to promote historic preservation during this period. Mr. Fine
volunteered. Observing that Mr. Fine would, no doubt, be busy with activities
for IILFI during this period, Mrs. Choitz suggested that invitations should be
made to South Bend Heritage and Southhold to participate as t,,rl l . She noted
that she had given Mr. Duvall names of two individuals to work with from
Southhold. "'rs. Host.etler, R'r. Talley, and :'rs. Petrass also indicated
interest itt participatin, in this committee. ^'rs. IIoctetl i tans appointed
chair.
VTI. Hearing of Visitors
ti'r. Sporleder indicated that other groups such as the Northern Indiana Chapter
of the .American Institute of Architects and the American Association of Civil
Engineers should not be forgotten for the resources which they might bring to
• .the ,table. .
IIe also indicated that he wished to emphasize the ongoing concern for the
Blake Gardens site.
Returning to the topic of Preservation Week he suggested this might also be a
fruitful op_ortut:ity for scminar, and workshops to engage the community in
'preservation issues.
Mr. Sporleder introduced Dr. Scharper of Notre Dames Department of Theology,
. co-author of The Green Bible.
VIII. Announcements &.'Miscellaneous ~Tatters
none
I1. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p,.m.
•
0