Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 1998AGENDA OF THE,REGULAR MEETING of the _ . -.. �iISTORIC' PRESERVATION COMMISSION_.' Regular monthly meeting County Commissioner1s- 7:30 p.m. h' -Conference Room., - Monday,.April 20, 1998 - 7th Tl' County City Bldg.` I. Call to Order II.: Roll.Call III. Public Hearing ;. A.-Certificate of- Appropriateness. Applications - -1) 621 .Lincolnway -East - EP -LHD; .privacy,,aud chain -link fence_ • -.• 2) 1029-Hudson - RD -LHD; attic replacement 3) 66401 Walnut.Rd. - LL;. new home construction in outlot of. Landmark...,.: '4) 1610.East Wayne Street'- EW- LHD;.window replacement, enclosure of existing porch w /_addition above, and construction of new screened porch.at rear _B::,His_toric Landmarks 1).T2670 SR 23,- Petition to.remove section from Landmark 2).108 N. Main_St. - JMS Building.Second.reading- IV_= Regular_- Business A. Approval -of .'Minutes,;-.-_., Marcli >5 -1998- 2. March 16, 1998 B: Treasurer's Report C. Correspondence D. Committee Reports- 1. - Nominating . Gommittee.... , _ } 2. Budget & Finance a.-supplemental.appropriaton-- 3. Historic.Districts. - 4. _'Histori,c Landmarks A...Request�'for amendment. of.. designated, Landmark.- 166401 Walnut. Rd B..:' Request - for :,removal: of .:Landmark designation"- 60500 Breman Hwy_ 5-Standards &--Maintenance, .a. 60500`Breman.Highway (SR : 331). 7-:COA application, Crofoot.Hse LL . 6. Legal - E .. Staff • Reports- Cr.of:A�wS.ta££;Approvals ,(se' attachment v_ 3: DHPA Grant...status.. l., Leeper Park -Plan 2._,- District .Guidelines b•. - 1998 -99 - 4 Proposed Local.Historic- Districts a. Taylor's Field .(South St. Joseph- St. ).. b. North St: St. c. Cushing St. 5. Liaison committee elections 6. Spring Newsletter- 7 Historic Preservation Week activities - _ V. Old Business VI: New Business.- _A. First Reading .- .of__Historic-District Designation 1- North .St. _Joseph Street Histori.c..Preservation District 2. Taylor's Field Historic Preservation District ' Vn- : - ,Rearing= of Vi i ors Announcements & Miscellaneous Matters IX. Adjournment ' - 4 44-1 d V � 4 1 &- - , -", , - * , Lj M CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS'STAFF'REPORT APPLICATION -- 1998 - 0330 -2 part B PROPERTY = 621 Lin " South Bend., - ,IN ' OWNER Joe MacHatton - Occupant /applicant) " - DESIGNATION -- LHD -EP RATING: -- Contributing C/9 STATEMENV OF SIGNIFICANCE/HISTORIC -.,CONTEXT-'This. house was built in 18912 known:�owner was Andrew Fuerbringer, however; it is unclear, as.to whether or not'Mr. Fuerbringer built the house.' Mr. Fuerbringer's, son., _Wolf, sold' the, house'to Henry P: _Parker in 1899. "for " $2,000.00.- Mr:'., ker ;was a -- `retired farmer who - owned. - the "property - until his death.,.` in 1918; at" which °time: it` passed- down"to hi's daughter, - Iona - Hempey. Mrs,.• "Hempey. used• the house' as-..a_'rental, ..renting it to Cecelia Garstka in 1939 and eventually gelling-it to - °her, in 1944. Miss Garstka Vas employee at Wilson..Brothers.for'several -years before.going to work for the Bendix Corporation." Miss Garstka dividsd' the house, into two.units, - she resided in' •. one af, them and rented, -out the other.:` This arrangement'1lasted until her death, - - in -May 1977. , Miss Garstka, having no".children of" her• own, left 'the house - to - her and nephew,:Helen- - and Joseph Slott.. who :immediately sold the house to the current owner, Mr... 'Joseph MacHatton. ,. PROPOSED CHANGE - Applicant proposes -to erect a stockade - style fence on west - side of property .between the and-garage with - a ,gate' on' ; the east . s.ide • of the garage. A'" chain fence would be erected along the east property..line back to the house'.. STANDARDS The.'Preservation• - Guidelines for Ufi&olnway'East Historic District: :. b): i - ..The Guidelines ,for theAincolnway• East "Diate -ict follow - the Rehabilitation- Model...; I..Environment, I.A.I. Required: New plant materials, fencing::.shall be compatible with the character of the neighborhood in.size, scale, material and color. - . 34.. Pr' Signs;_. Streetlights .':..fencing:. out,of scale or inappropriate to the neighborhood may not be used. RECOMMENDATION. The applicant proposes to erect.,rear- yard'fences to enclose this' of the site as shown on.plans•submitted:--6- -foot wood stockade privacy fence is' proposed along' the north line which - abuts" the parking lot of the Internal - Revenue Service :office This fence is ' 'be set sufficiently- in from the pavement edge as to avoid damage from 'parking cars. The opposite -south side of the yard *is, proposed to be.secured'with 4 foot chain -link fence extending the line of.the south' side-wall of -the' house toward,the. rear and. terminating. with a re turn' toward,. the south corner of the existing garage. This return section- shall include a gate. By aligning this fence with the sidewall, the chain - link. CERTIFICATE - OF '•APPROPRIATENESS;STAFF REPORT -'- . fence will be set in-_2 to 3 feet -from .the actual'sout'h -p.,M, r_ty- line: By - rental agreement the yard, adjacent• to the; south• and east :is" controlled by ibe.- . applicant who also 'occupies the 'next property,•south, for business purposes. The proposed fences- , are-consistent with the guidelines -and -- are typical.of other rear-yard-fences within the district—The lot adjacency may not be termed typical of the district - . although other- such situations do exist' within the district'.- Al.though fence may._ have greater visibility'than common privacy fences; .the high- ;traffic;attthis location—justifies—the applicant's concern for privacy at this location. Staff recommends DBD 4/9/98 I If Kz� t 3 -6'Y�' J AI ,12'1 1 1 t I , 4 � =-►x -• r f � � �f Y ✓df"� •'� • .T '}.� -�1r�� • e, , .11 �r lei.. I•r ]'�ad�l7..\ " t f•{w f I V "' "� ..1731' rr `• r• i " L�.�� '�" y • t . f T i x° r� a 11 A 10 Iry / 7 OY .. I j IL,7/ a o � s° fk i rc � LIN LID Ic CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT APPLICATION -- 1998 -0331 PROPERTY -- 1029 Hudson Avenue South Bend, IN OWNER =- John, & I Christine O'Brien DESIGNATION -- LHD -RD . RATING . -- Significant' S /11 ' ` ' STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE MISTORIC Mrs. Anna Poehlman, widow of Godfrey Poehlman the past of Muessel Brewing Company, - purchased the property from the Portage Land Company in 1915 and this Queen Anne style house constructed the same year. Mrs. Poehlman lived 123 S. St. Joseph and used this house as rental property. She owned the property.until her death.in - 1928 when the -house passed 'to her-daughter, Mrs. - O.ttilie Poehlman Miller ­Mrs. - Miller alko rented the - house, , she was the vice president of the $outti -Bend Highland Cemetery Association. The house remained in her possession until 1943 when she - sold it toAHerman Newsome and - his wife, Irene. Mr. Newsome was'a lawyer, he and his lived in the house until 1971 when he sold the house ' to his wife. Mrs: Irene Newsome and Marjorie 'Newsome 'sold the house to- ,Jeffrey Lee Mathis in November of 1971. Mr: Mathis'rented the house:_to Kurdy until' 1985 when he sold the house to the' current`owners;' & Christine O'Brien. PROPOSED CHANGE Applicant; proposes to replace two attic windows with Anderson double hung windows and ` screens.ano - one with similar Andersen fixed -sash. The front window has "a ,division of 9- over :.I'. and;. the applicant. p roppses to get as close the that _division as possible; The side window is fixed window with 12 divisions which the.applicant.has stated that it be replaced with a window with.an unknown muntin design:: -The rear., would-widen the-existing - opening 12 inches in both dimensions. The replacement. sash at�this location would also receive, - a -12 •pane'munt,in - insert. - STANDARDS.- The--'P-reservation-Guidelines tor,Riveiside Drive - Historic District. b):. - ..The Guidelines for the ' Riverside "Drive District follow the Rehabilitation Model.... II.C.1. Required - - Original windows and doors, including sash,,lintels, sills,.shutters, decorative glass hardware shall be- retained or when' deteriorated= beyond - repair . .. ; replaced - with units and trim - resembling the original. II.C.3.- Prohibited Original windows,-doors-'and hardware shall not be discarded when they can be restored and .reused in place. New windows or door. openings that would alter the -scale and proportion of the•*building shall not be introduced. Inappropriate new - window or door features such as metal insulating glass combinations. that require the removal of original• windows and doors shall not be installed. - CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRTATENESS STAFF REPORT - RECOMMENDATION The applicant proposes to alter 3 attic,story windows by replacement,with new Andersen windows per the documentation submitted. Each - window has-its own character - and context issue and they are.- therefore dealt with separately. First the front window presently only has an upper sash, effective-we ather resistance being provided by a storm sash. The remaining upper sash has 9 .window panes., The design , of - the lower 'sash is not known. This condition : 'appears unchapged'from "the 1977,,6urvey documentation. Staff recommends ' approval of a- replacement window." at this location with - upper;,sash muntins' ' provided in the 9 lite_ configuration. ! The "conditions at the.rear, window - are - similar, -with missing bottom sash and an upper ,sash of '12 panes. At'this -location the applicant, seeks to enlarge the window to provide-egress area opportunity for a window. air conditioner. This window is in the rear at a location heavily obscured by trees. Although the. Guide lines • prohibit._ new window .installations - which alter the" scale and _,proportion'of . the. design, the proposed installation of, a somewhat 1 "arger: window may. ,be•.aceomplished,without negative affect on the . overall _ design'of - the - building'or the district context. Staff recommends approval, The 3rd�window- located at the is somewhat more problematic.- Here, an original sash of �12,panes is clearly visible from the- street. Since it is fixed, operational issues should not apply the I window could,therefore be retained even with moderate deterioration if storm protection -were provided. Staff recommends retention of.this historical and denial of II the request for its replacement. DBD 4/14/98 t t r't �a r I Yr ft •r� ) I " f ', t y h , ifwile i• :.;, �.� i •'r y � . � _ , ` .. r � � �,�• ` ;r�;. t�'�} it ti � .. r y = . �, •� .mil' • .R1 (.'". � �: 1 t It '�l -rdr� (j TIN i _ r � .* • `'s •fi j 4 �.i It Other. - 24. SITE PLAN TIM roll I • ' � - •�� • f M1�T �s� oi► tow � • 1r, �r��1 � MMM�MYY� ' nswiw .'++�N,RZ�k'tt{`l;`•.jy,S.• ;+� ^.!Y• �r'e:'.•e1..�Y��Y�.�••., r:•...- t.....r "11` _ __ _ _ �' t, `_r.�n:a.`ac ��;�cy�z -.? ^.• +I�,�.•jR ^•'^r'� �y,. •'�./ .._ v_. �"`� , i:.�.w. ��#.�:;i?a. >;1:_:; 3;3.1'2 :'�s�.` + vb- '�i;;,;r�*Zn'�:a"�•.v+- ,..—`- -- o.....•- 2 RO ' , � �/UD� S� ,�o-u B t� �� Gtl� �c�.�,cJ s _ _ _ . . Root ,�s�u T Or /���R vv /N 00 1 �Ovo� fli Sid) g�y :5 1 ma 21 4� r 4 /6) ;t �CfS7) , 5, O�F - l4 X s 8 CD. .;.,$23) FN'�� O.;V, A t - 1 : t -' �PlIQG�ils6.v > 5 I aB �Ta / S 36) - 4:t CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT APPLICATION - - _ 19'98 _ -331-2. PROPERTY -- 66401 Walnut Walkerton, IN OWNER -= Anthony & Patricia Harman ', J ESIGNATION - LL RATING -- Outstanding'9/13 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE /HISTORIC CONTEXT Elisha and Anilla Taylor, early settlers of South Bend and prominent land owners, sold. acres -off of the north side-of -the south 1 /2,- northwest 1/4 of section 36, township 36, range 1,west, located in Liberty Township, to Mrs. Martha'M. Rosebaugh in 1'866 - for $200.00. Mrs. Rosebaugh was a widow.from Pennsylvania; who. is believed - to have constructed the house.' Howe-ver.,'do to- 'the lack documentation it;is not for ,sure if she was responsible'for building the " -.or ,when =the-house., ' was built. Mrs. Rosebaugh was 'listed as"' a resident 0f %iberty'Township.in th1,870 -1880 Indiana Census. When the census was taken-she--was-a year old.widow with two daughters, a son and two :granddaughters living with -her. :In...1879 Mrs.. Rosebaugh in conjunction with Solomon J.- :.Knepp and_ Daniel' W.•' Houser.,,'purchase over 700-feet 'of lumber and other 'items1; .bondu6jve wiih- building ra ".house, thus,. -• giving a - possible construction date' -'of 1879: Mr's:.Ros 1i.... h. owned the property until her _death in, 1883, at ; which ,time.:.Mr -. .Solomon.. , Knepp ; was : appointed -the administrator- of her 'estate: Mr..... Knepp requested "private - estate -sale to settle =Mrs. Rgsebaugh's - debts, ..whi6h..exceeded,,the -.net worth:.of her personal= estate.- .,Mrs. Rosebaugh died ° at ~:th.e...age`of 73 with a_.personal estate-value - d at. $32.00 dollars and real _.estate Valued at .:$630..00.. After all claims against her estate were filed'in 1884 the propeity:was•sold'at private auction-to .Isaac and .Elizabeth' Ullery _for •$630.00, .''The Ullery .family, -was a pioneer" family in South Bend and a- relation of the Taylor family. Mr. Ullery sold the property to ' Jo * hn J. Parish-;, 1886 who transferred. to Mrs. Elizabeth Ullery the 'same day. Mrs.. "Ullery owned "the* .:property :until her d_ eath at .which time William H Ul - lery - came : the sole .executor of -- her. - estate . - For the next twenty years the _ of :the house - .is : unknown, however, , = by.1940.the house is owned. by Otis and Niria - Tennant. : Mr..Tennant, . born in_1886, :married Nina Cleveland In ].912... 1. The young: couple South Bend.' -in 1914', 'where Mr. .Tennant - went .to work for..the'Studebaker Corporation. The'Tennant's could have bought the property at any -time .from- 1914 on ,'- however,. the actual date is unknown. 'Mr. Tennant owned'the'house - -until •1947 when he sold it to,Delmas Figg and Roy Prater, who only, owned the house fora year, they. sold•it -to Villiam and Agnes Klinkhamer ,in - 1948. " .'The _. Klinkhamer_'s .owned the,., ,house -until 1956 -when they sold it to Minor I. Way. of- Ohio.' Mr. - Way rented the house' out, selling it in 1977 to .Bruce T..Fleming. - Mr. Fleming sold the property two years later to Melba R. Lawson, who was responsible for having the house landmarked in' 1981. Mrs. Lawson sold .the, house and surrounding land, except ;roughly lb acres, in 1985 to James•Rosander. - -.Mr­ Rosander owned the house until 1996 when he sold it to Douglas,and Lauren-- Tallent. Mrs. - Lawson sold the-additional 16 acres to' Mr.. Harmon in - 1997:. . CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT PROPOSED CHANGE . Applicant proposes.to'erect a new three bedroom Ranch style home and a 30 X.40 foot pole barn on the.newly created lot number 1 of Anthony Harmon's. STANDARDS Landmark guidelines do hot.-address new construction at a landmark sight other than.additions existing structures. RECOMMENDATION This Landmark.was• originally established as a farmstead with 22 associated acres,- mostly in.farm field and approximating a.square site plan.- Around the mid 1980s the Landmark buildings "were'sold on a reduced parcel of approximately 5.2 acres leaving an "L." shaped•outlot.of approximately 16.8 acres. This• "parcel has subsequently been purchased by the applicant and established as a single loi�'subdivi_sion for proposes of constructing a single family dwelling -as represented"by the plans submitted. The and.accessory - pole barn °are to be located- toward the north end of the *:: 6gtlot,. remote ;from the historical buildings and obscured from them by fence. =row plantings,: ,The . proposed ..house is common -for ..such modern rural house. lots with Ranch Style °layout - and Colonial Revival detailing. No elevation views have been provided for the -pole barn.which is assumed to be.of the'typical metal - siding type. The. proposed.'.buildings' - will,.have little affect on immediate context of the - historical " - buildings . On - approach, -from the the• contour of the topography will prevent seeing the new buildings until one_is nearly in front the farmstead.,Nearly -400 feet of clear area- separates the proposed new buildings from the ; extensive tree and shrub-growth which forms- th'e edge�.of the yard surrounding the historical buildings'. An.issue does'arise as'to whether 'the integrity of .the larger farm -field context will be undermined by. the construction of the new buildings.,This impact should-be minimal so.long as the- development limited- to.the.. single building lot under its present zoning. Staff approval of -the application as'submitted. DBD , 4/14/98 LAJ e� n� f - 13� "+ �x �a Al w /75 / ,�s /,, —r Y�/, /"", y /� 4/ •i • _ �. ITI ' L3 r jb r CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT APPLICATION -- 1998 =0407 PROPERTY = =,1610 East Wayne South Bend, IN OWNER -- Karen - McGrew DESIGNATION -- LHD -EW RATING -- Contributing C /10 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE /HISTORIC CONTEXT Whitcomb and Keller built this H.R. Stapp designed English Country house in 1929. It remained-.vacant until 1931 when the.designer, H.R.. Stapp and wife, Eva, purchased the property. Stapp was ari.architect; employed by the Whitcomb and- Keller Corporation, -for whom he designed many, of the houses", located in the Sunnymede area. By the mid -1940s Mr. Stapp opened his own - architectural firm,in the City National Bank Building. The Stapp's -lived in the.house until 1943 when it was sold to Jack & Mildred Pace. .Mr. Pace was the president of Pace's Service located at 601 S. Michigan Street: The Pace's lived in the house until their deaths at which the house passed on to Walter.and..,Bernice Pace.* Walter Pace sold the house.to the current owners, Daniel.and,Karen McGrew'in 1974. PROPOSED CHANGE -r Applicant 'proposes to replace the existing metal casement windows with new energy efficient, Pella windows', enclose the existing screen porch, construct a new, ,room above the - screened porch, and construct a new screen porch ".at ; the rear•'of the-house. ' STANDARDS'-' The Preservation•Guidelizies for East Wayne Street Historic District: b)....The Guidelines for the East Wayne'Street- District follow the Rehabilitation Model.... II.C.1. Required 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 units and trim resembling the original. j II.C.2. Recommended For energy efficiency, steel casements may require interior storm windows. If steel casement windows have to be replaced or removed, windows, of similar size and style used. II . C,.3 . - Prohibited `- Original windows; doors, and hardware shall not be discarded when they can be restored and reused in place. New windows or door openings that would alter the scale and proportion of the building shall not be introduced.. Inappropriate new window or door features such as metal insulating glass combinations that, require the removal of original windows and doors shall not be "II.D.1. Required Existing or original porches, stoops ... shall be retained or replaced by CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT replicas of the.same design and materials when deteriorated beyond repair. Porches,and= .additions reflecting later architectural.styles, and which are important the building's historical integrity shall by retained'. II.D.2. Recommended When enclosing porches for heat conservation-or other reasons it should be done a.manner - that .does not alter the architectural.or historical character of the building: .-III.A.l.. Required ' Additions to existing buildings -shall be in height and proportion to the existing structure. - III.A.2. Recommended Contemporary designs should be compatible in character and mood to-the - building or neighborhood. III.A.3. Prohibited Additions that would add new height or change the existing facade of a. building and change its scale and architectural character shall not be constructed. III.A.4. Not Recommended - , - - New- stories should.not be added nor should existing s ories be removed which would destroytimportant architectural details, features, and spaces of the building. - III.B.L•:VRequired: ' - � - , Materials used on addition existing structure shall"relate to the existing or-_original,=materials -of the structure. Also, as much of the original structure .as possible- be - retiingd so that the addition could be removed without damage to the basic structure and appearance of the building. RECOMMENDATION The details of,this;.application are somewha't'sketchy as -the owner seeks conceptual approval of the requested-additions to,inturring extensive desigm costs.. - The fundamental concept of enclosing an existing porch is common and allowable under the - guidelines: so long as the.integrity the major building is respected. In this•case, there,-is the,further` desire - to construct additional enclosed space above..As..an addition to the-rear, this is also within the requirements- of- the-.guidelines so long as.the materials employed are _ : consistent - with2the_- .context: Likewise the - construction of a new screened porch with a"shed•roof ' as- illustrated is consistent with the guidelines for • additions. Once. -again the final details should be consistent with the existing style.and of the original building. Staff recommends the conceptual - approval- - sought by the application but has some reservations- regarding the character of the final 'construction. The cedar shingle material indicated in the application for exterior wall finish is• consistent with the guidelines, however distribution.of material, proportion of openings_,, window .types and treatments, etc. are not sufficiently delineated as to allow review. Final approval by staff'or committee should be required in this case. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT The request of the application for replacement of existing steel sash windows with-new Pella casement windows has the problems typical of such a.request in this neighborhood where such windows are common. Realizing the energy costs u l and maintenance diffie' ties at such windows, they generally may be replaced where the replacement windows may be deemed as similar in 'style and size. -Most windows-atthis building have a mix of operable casement sections with fixed sections'which may be difficult to replicate in commonly available window systems. Staff would recommend approval . of the replacement windows but would encourage the,applicants ' to pursue,alternative measures such as interior storm windows or replacement. with a thermally efficient metal window system which more closely replic the original-. DBD 4/14/98 C�,Yiq e tcla Yo 0 IN I pir 0 �o o� 92 - T - ) va -(—N I. Cl rK, W)"Acbui LkAAjC& r foal( JQC) 3/1 MAN J.Ykpl F ^�r Lrb•�'N•.'`.W.,...x � ; . w h._ � t7f iT!L�i .a'"° .s.'..: { L • , 1G "- «±,r'3 „�, xr,.„;,� is `::.'- na,gtr,> CN — l ' �> �' r�' s.��,'�'s'i��9+��R'•C�:.�"'�!/, 4y�,, �"� �ti �4- ,-5- .�'��yC�'�1.�'q°�`� *�!''ro r.A ,o dElx�i'� &� l ''�' : s• u g.,�'t �:i�P�k�...- F.,�'�,' .ec �” ° � ' � ''!� •.fi x.. ♦ .t„i;�Ch4� .= .''� T, n .w.n�r� 4 � .;� -. .�,...•""f''', " ,- ,,,,. ;;' �r.:,: '�,Jrc`�.��- �,n..�a, ... - =�ar��s.��.`'i.rK�4�k�.., I -C. ' .s�i,� � � • .s f _� INA t*A LN MONO pas epommoo,- I- • yam► � - MCI fil zwov 77 24 77 IF � I l as °d °v Ape �4 I I 5aa r 7 � r-P �� 1'iI a/ 3 r 5 0/,l (" C V '2 �� ( 21 d� s Y141 .,,,. r!' �RS /�4Re� 1 -(�Iqe�J w A. � R o Posed S CA le- �- 1 04 0 Y/-Y °� � d�o�o d � , Sl cx' el I d "5 0 yo /' � a� des CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT APPLICATION -- Request for- reduction of Landmark -area PROPERTY -- 12670 State - Road -23 Granger, -3N - OWNER -- Berkeley Corporation . DESIGNATION -- LL RATING Outstanding•0 /.13' - STATEMENT.OF -SIGNIFICANCE /HISTORIC CONTEXT In 1835 Mr. Isaac Hathaway, of Cass. County Michigan, sold 72.07 acres of land located in Sectioti'.18 -of Harris Township to-Daniel Follmer; a settler from Pennsylvania. Mr. Follmer sold the land to John Follmer in October -of 1837,: who built the house that same year.. Mr-. John Follmer organized the first Township April of 1853,and was . •elected - its first - •chairman.'- I The township - board held, it's first meetings in Mr. Follmer's house. Mr. Follmer.was also responsible for - helping construct the first school building in Harris Township in 185.3 - at the corner of Adams and Cherry Roads. Afte'r.the Civil - War Mrs. Margaret Follmer,_ wife of John, became Granger's first established the - first post office in her home in 1875. Mr.'.Follmer died in 1865 and Mrs., Follmer passed away in 1906, at which time the house -was left- - to Mrs._Follmer's brother. Mrs. W.C. Kownover. Mr..Kownover took up where his 'sister left off by becoming postmaster. His son Charles - Frank took - 'up the - torch - where his father left off\and upon his - depth: Mrs. - Charles" Frank'(Nellie).Kownover became postmistress twenty -five years, aventuaMr selling .the_.}�ouse in '1953 to' James' W.. Goff The house' was . used- as the office of .the Township_ Trustee and Assessor from 1966 -to - 1974; Mrs. James W. Goff was the elected official..The farmhouse and several outbuildings were. established as a Local Landmark in 1976 Mrs. Goff sold the house to Thomas A. Selsor in 1986. Mr. Selsor, president— of the Berkeley Corporation,,intended to"use the'buildingto house a restaurant and shops: - - - Around 1988'Mr. Selsor sold house and approximately- 0.83.acre to. Belinda = and =Phil Albert'thus severing the continuity of ownership for the collective farmyard buildings.. They renovated the interior of the house,and_made''it -into a restaurant I called Yesterday's Food & Spirits. At the same time the, overall "legal description of the Landmark was reduced from its original 'approximate -4 .acres 'to approximately' acres occupied by.two• approximately_ equal lots,-one with -the house - -and another with the barn and •other.assorted outbuildings. PROPOSED,CHANGE The.Owner has requested the further reduction of the legal description of the .Landmark to remove a,sect_ion'94.61.- feet.wide from the area between the barn• and'the house. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT ' STANDARDS The guidelines for'Local Landmarks-do not include requirements,for the ` alteration of lot areas: Though the guidelines in the county Historic °..E.. Preservation Plan for the establishment of Landmarks, give.criteria for--the"-, analysis of. significance - they do not provide specific direction on,the establishment'of boundaries.-The best- guidance.available for such a determination comes from National Register Bulletin -.16A an:excerpt of'which is attached. Most significantly,:this' criteria states-that should:... 1) " encompass ,btit not. exceed the' full - ,extent -of .,the.:significant 'resources -and,' land'making up the•property." 2)'" be large .enough to include all- historic features of the property but should-not include "buffer zones" or acreage not contributing directly to the significance of the'property." 3) not_allow "donut holes .... No area of resources within a set of boundaries may be excluded from - listing.... - Specifically., it is recommended that rural sites be based on... 1) "A - small - - parcel f drawn , to immediately, encompass the significant resources; including outbuildings and associated_setting.'.';' or , 2) "Acreage including fields, forests and open range .that was associated with the property historically and conveys the property's historic setting." RECOMMENDATION' It appears that thee'- landmark° was originally. designated ..along the - .lines of'.the second National Register guideline for rural property above and upon its- amendment was redefined along the lines of the guideline "l -for rural property:, _ Clearly the Landmark was established to reflect -the farmyard -group as opposed, to the individual =house.: .: Though. the - intervening _building;(former garden shop)' might."have been more sympathetically placed by:being setback, the streets'eape retains. the'. sense .of `the farmyard and. clearly. may be read as, an associated and-barn.-The-separation of features into separate and discreet Landmarks as.implied' request is. contrary to the •expression.of this context. -Though such alteration might'not cause"negative, affect on the resource,--it would create.the opportunity, for unsympathetic. - alterations of the • intervaning• space_, which could- des-tro' this - context. ; ._ Several Certificates . of"`appropriateness' - have been`;granted since- 1975 allowing::_, " continued reasonable' development --of, the property - - ,and- 'Staff - finds -nd- reason 'why . the'National'Registration guidelines should'not be applied- -the integrity`of this context. Staff. that -the Landmark description' remain as it is and that contiguous site = -area not be removed from the middle of the Landmark'• designation. ; DBD - .4/14/98 GUIDELINES FOR SELECTING BOUNDARIES ALL PROPERTIES • Carefully select boundaries to encompass, but not to exceed, the full extent of the significant resources and land area making up the property. • The area to be registered should be large enough to include all historic features of the property, but should not include "buffer zones" or acreage not directly contributing to the significance of the property. • Leave out peripheral areas of the property that no longer retain integrity, due to subdivision, development, or other changes. • "Donut holes" are not allowed. No area or resources within a set of boundaries may be excluded from listing in the National Register. Identify nonhistoric resources within the boundaries as noncontributing. • Use the following features to mark the boundaries: 1. Legally recorded boundary lines. 2. Natural topographic features, such as ridges, valleys, rivers, and forests. 3. Manmade features, such as stone walls; hedgerows; the curblines of highways, streets, and roads; areas of new construction. 4. For large properties, topographic features, contour lines, and section lines marked on USGS maps. BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES AND OBJECTS • Select boundaries that encompass the entire resource, with historic and contemporary additions. Include any surrounding land historically associated with the resource that retains its historic integrity and contributes to the property's historic significance. • For objects, such as sculpture, and structures, such as ships, boats, and railroad cars and locomotives, the boundaries may be the land or water occupied by the resource without any surroundings. For urban and suburban properties that retain their historic boundaries and integrity, use the legally re- corded parcel number or lot lines. • Boundaries for rural properties may be based on: I. A small parcel drawn to immediately encompass the significant resources, including outbuildings and associated setting, or 2. Acreage, including fields, forests, and open range, that was associated with the property historically and conveys the property's historic setting. (This area must have historic integrity and contribute to the property's historic significance.) HISTORIC SITES • For historic sites, select boundaries that encompass the area where the historic events took place. Include only portions of the site retaining historic integrity and documented to have been directly associated with the event. HISTORIC AND ARCHITECTURAL DISTRICTS • Select boundaries to encompass the single area of land containing the significant concentration of buildings, sites, structures, or objects making up the district. The district's significance and historic integrity should help determine the boundaries. Consider the following factors: 1. Visual barriers that mark a change in the historic character of the area or that break the continuity of the district, such as new construction, highways, or development of a different character. 2. Visual changes in the character of the area due to different architectural styles, types or periods, or to a decline in the concentration of contributing resources. 56 r.:. `A ' AOU JMS .BUILDING PROPOSED'LOCAL LANDMARK 108- -N0RTH MAIN SOUTH BEND, INDIANA ' Historic.P- reservation Commission Of South Bend and St. Joseph County April,_1998 j a.,, r :+mac .FF *'� iz., "�,.4 � <'i.:': - ..'s..=i'•' z L•'ti _ •v:,•Ye .l � ^'I � � "F . $ - ' � - - t ' - 3 .�"" ;,a�,.,�. �• 'wc,w. •s. y�v .w �"l .� �t�- 9�D " + 7 -• -��. i:''�iw �'� >_t .. a ���:_: .: •�_. i. �.�; ',« ":i�c -':� -` k�,"T'4,�'`4�a...,. . F ��'- Sf!���, ,.'s .. , . �5. ' i � •.,�.'w ... �.. "3'� ,: �.. .:'':4'� 9 > .,�,". =. .. x �'.�a', 7.",?: � n�...t `*, .. —.? .'., >. •. '`� s' r •'. a'�'?':' „ •'` � : a,;,s,>.$_. ` 'r _. � i' �ti n, .. ;;r�. {r!a'' °: _ :fix. ; - � a.�»' ...a :�:K `\ �1. r< • �4� "� lt.�»� r', '..' '. '. , , r f �i r ,., i �',+i; ::', ,� y - � 1. of +Pa'f � � ��•'� t '> ��a It � W c�� ' a eai�F^�w. � M Sv✓ I � , <'i.6� � � „ � - �, i,�'• dk tr ^'�'.ty, ..•.z"i,. r 4.k�• -r' 1y' ' '«�ca.f• ., , 6, - ..4 m•, i4 ' �..'Y.'MR'4 �w •��� ,. �,1��' , r• III �I �S ,4 r c - , 4 tA i r 4 2 t , i 1 . , C.YA vq, 1 zr'• 1 r -i• t� � "b r y.. �� '�!IR., '"h�'— "i ..•'',•* :y "a y; � � "k. a . , •: , l. + "'a`� • � , 'YS. µp r: •.,• µa y , mR.. �y �`Z.�lr,.,YC".: +. �,r'a. - ! ��' �'4. . �0..... �` �rI w. „ Y:'� 6 • „ �.�'.,. `5 .. n ,r y- S.i.' ���.':Y .s .. � ... _: -"t�- a y,� h 'i, �-� � �('. • - ...Fu;,,r s ' �.t' .° � A' - Y - • - 1: + r }' s'4. a-.q Y ,-... 4` . w , ; k F” ,f.a1:Y3 u.�T�'�ci�"•f d id . . \_y � . r , s s..�, 'i s, ! '`34�•ar►'ti t 'Ia dQ #11•d, aw t ir •; � : � r p � , y 'M M, , , l�w �� lil l a �'�j'1 1 `t :r,•f: "k, f n . �`�, . '�Sr ''t k:.. ,,�.i ec ;.r ? p 1>. � * •.L , ., . - OTi t t, y, ,. ji , A 1 r i v. It �rw r ' .I. ' ' � �, tff' •� .. .. apt, . - ' -H' - 77.771 7777777 w r 4i ' -s M4 4: A : ff' -e.•a •'~'� - ,h _- �' +±F } i,'i::r 't, i i .' > "� ��IYr �t5.^t•,C's,+'�., — :'I ^ . +.49�,.� :_',r.^`n a. <w ::Y;�'i �.. �». 4, w� �11L '�4 r �Ff?.. s f ,� _ Y t "�} � �s4 - C.t �� " i _ ' �';f:rx i'` ^ � ` yt P'; ` r ( �:�: • k t' - ' � i. .,( t' ;,�, t ;•&• �'�>��� :~�� t �, �+ C` '� , . ' T 2 ' i•YaSrNp- y��?.-�,l� sY C4ti� . .•3 ^.:' � -�� ': 'q iAw - ��.,�r �(, - T`�1�T�! _ i .:a .� _•�K:�•�et�('r`�y v�r�t s ':�«::.. +e `y.+. y <`���,� �y��,� - .;4 y �-j - " �� x t +,ti; a,, f�.' �: w upF'' 'L '•'�:4: +'> �> 4i ,,..e: +�• � J'��; - 'S"«a' `A_ f '.�:f,. , - ! rs':xn1. a:. �.i 'A.•E ;.y;i�.`': - . ��:'z - q 1 ,cY 3 z + ,>� S f -.. - 5.. r �_.'y.� �..',S •w, i -L- 1V .t;. Lir t � _. fr, y .r -.f,, y �`uw.i /�"r :. :_:..::':;3'�•ye { ° i "�° 5 � ice., _ ' v "t,,'« - 7, {�� - { I fn 1 L ' Ne i+ " s.• L+.I r+ ,L..l�Ygt^�,„�,�,- �h. .,a•°aslR�t $� Y•t I faun _AO FA - Aw I I S Ity "APJ AA. vi 1 1 w JMS Building 108 N. Main •HISTORICAL CONTEXT -- - -:— — This propertyis _located on the northeast corner of North Main and West Washington Streets of South Bend, ,Indiana. The property is located in the original plat of South Bend as lots 19 and 20. John Mohler Studebaker was the vice president and treasurer of the Studebaker Manufacturing Company, later becoming its president and chairman. John Mohler Studebaker purchased lots 19 and 20 of the Original plat of South Bend,around 1908 with the intent of constructing a new more modern office building. In 1909 he contracted Solon S. Beman, ''of Chicago, to design the building and H.G. Christman Company to build it. The architect, Mr. Beman, was- originally from New York where he apprenticed with Richard UpJohn. .After his apprenticeship he came _to Chicago at the request.. of - Mr. Pullman. -Mr. Pullman hired Solon Beman to design his house "and later had him design the town of Pullman, Illinois. Mr. Beman used -his knowledge of the Chicago School of design along with his experience gained at the Colombian Exposition to design the eight story JMS Building. Beman utilized steel, granite, glazed_ terra cotta and many classical decorative features in his design which was finally, -realized in 1910. Upon its opening the ,first floor of "the building contained commercial businesses while the remaining seven floors were rented office space. John M. .Studebaker owned the building until his death in 1917 when it was passed into the hands of a trusteeship set up.by his will. The members of the trusteeship were, John Mohler Studebaker Jr., Frederick Fish and George Witwer, they maintained control of the building.until April of 1936 when they relinquished their. trusteeship to John Mohler Studebaker III. Eight months later in December of, 1936 John Studebaker III sold the building to Eugene B.. Warner for $175,000.00. Mr. -Warner owned. the.-property and continued its original-use until his death. in '1946,, at ,which time the control of the building went to the- First Bank & Trust as .trustees. In 1970 the Bank sold the ' building-.to AGA Realty Company on land. contract._ - AGA Realty Company immediately began .plans for a" complete interior renovation to bring the building up to modern standards.. As these plans got under way plans to add a two to three story annex to the-.north side of the building began to appear. In 1973 AGA Realty Company and the First Bank & Trust sold the building to Economic Development Company, who completed the remodeling in 1975. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION This eight story classical revival style office structure was built in 1910 by John_ Mohler Studebaker. The facade is comprised of six bays to the west and three to - the and is covered with white terra cotta classical detailing. It is, also clearly divided into. three registers which are separated by strong projecting and intervening cornices. The bottom of each cornice is punctuated by volutes .and honeysuckle designs. which were placed between each bay.. The middle of the structure is articulated with a"three bay system which continues to the second intervening cornice, once again embellished with classical detailing. The top floor is further ,distinguished by the use of arched bays which are topped by elaborate egg and dart moulding. The overall decorative detail of the structure tends to reflect the impact of the Colombian Exposition of which the architect, Solon S. Beman, was a major participant. However, the frank expression of the steel frame, which allows maximum_ - admission_of light--and.-open- -interior -- space, - l inks - the building to the Chicago School of skyscraper construction. The building has a flat roof with robust projecting cornices that have egg and dart molding and decorated .voluted console brackets. The* structure has a modern aluminum stone front entrance and further modern stone fronts along the street. The windows are 1/1 double hung with simple decorated spandrels, except for the eighth floor which has round even spans and cartouche keystones. RECOMMENDATION Based on the Historic Preservation Commission's Local Landmarks Criteria as adopted by the Common Council, the potions of the site at 108 N. Main has been recommended to..the Historic Preservation Commission for designation as a Local Historic Landmark by the Landmarks Committee: The building meets the criteria in at least three areas: 1.) Its embodiment of element"s -of- architectural design, detail, materials, or craftsmanship which represents an architectural characteristic or .innovation. 2.) Its suitability for preservation. 3.) Its identification with the life of a person or persons of historical significance. The building fulfills. criteria #1 as an excellently preserved- example of a Classical Revival: Style advanced office building with Chicago School influences- building is the first example of modern office building construction in South Bend. The building is rated an Outstanding Thirteen in the Indiana Historic Sites and Structures Inventory. The building fulfills criteria. #2 by the integrity of• its original construction with only minor alterations. Alterations -are limited to the storefront and facades at the ground level. The building fulfills criteria #3 by-its association with prominent South Bend citizen John - Mohler Studebaker, vice-president of.- Studebaker Manufacturing Company. In- .addition 'to_- its :well. known owner- it was designed by Solon S. Beman,'the man responsible for designing Pullman, Illinois as well as several other buildings in South Bend -such as J.M. Studebaker's residence, "Sunnyside ". Staff finds that the building meets the criteria for designation as a Local Landmark and recommends that the commission, so recommend the building to the common council for such designation. 4/2/98 MINUTES 6F REGULAR MEETING. of the HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Monthly Meeting 7:30 p.m. County Commissioner's- Conference Room Monday March 2, 1998, 7th F1oor.County- City_.Building I. Call to Order John Oxian, President of the commission, -brought the meeting to at 7:30 _ p.m. II. Roll Call .Commission members present were: Adrian Fine,' Catherine Hostetler; John Oxian, .Janeanne..Petrass, and,Jerry.Wiener. Commission staff-'present .were: David Duvall,- Director, -and Aladean DeRose, Counsel. Also attending the ,meeting-'were: Cleo Hickey - Director of the Morris Performing.- Arts.. Center, Theo - Pappas and John.- Krasinkiewicz - Kessler Associates, Sue Collier, and Loveda Jones., .III. Public Hearing I I A. Certificates of Appropriateness J 1. 1998 -0129 - 211 N. Michigan Mr. Duvall,`noted that the Staff Report.,,had been. read into .the minutes of the , previous meeting.as. -a .committee of the whole -and distributed, photographs, drawings, etc. Mr. Pappas : presented .the. architects .drawings_ with concrete samples and color- pallet. He noted that - construction of the new stagehouse . would, follow. the historical precedent of the. previous structure as an unadorned functional ..form. S.ignage- -be; inscribed..in a panel - section to. identify .the. building. from- .Main,Street. The .front elevation is to be altered ..by removing, the, existing..Marquee'and replacing it with a new marquee modeled after'the patterns of,the historical- original but with fewer bays of canopy.. Terra cotta and other 'facade treatments- will be very.' limited to- necessary repairs. Existing windows are,to remain,,again with minimal repairs..' The plan will provide truck access from Main Street. The small pedestrian alley between .. the Morris and' Palais at ....the alley will be enclosed and .;....incorporated into the ,egress. plan for the. auditorium..' The new_ stagehouse will be 'a ppr`oximately--.80.-feet.- Mall.. It will. -..be- floodlighted to illuminate the engraved signage . which,. will be.... in .a.,_smooth section at the upper-right which ,contralsts,_with, the . texture, of the general- building - block. Temporary, signage.. at. -the rear ..for ,.shows: will-.- be . accommodated- by, mounting eyelets . behind.,�.ah_ h— parapet temporary signage, ,.opportunity .might be af forded .,at the,,screenwalls which.- shield mechanical - equipment. Discussion, of the ,method of .illumination..for, this signage .1ed .to the establishment of up to -eight concealed light fixtures for this purpose. At the. -North side...:of, the building_.. existing •flush metal doors - .are. --.to be -replaced -,with similar -flush metal doors possessing, greater acoustical insulation properties. I Mr..... Fine - .. moved - _..that _.. the.. - ". commission ::..approve., ', the ; , application,,,. per,_ Staff recommendation,,.with the :_addition,,.that_,eyelets­ will4.,be. installed < .behind . the parapet_ walls .for support of-temporary-', banners,,. up to.,_eight lights .shall., be „ installed'behind - the metal screen panels_ for illumination of- such banner - signage, dd,flush metal.acoustic doors shall be installed at existing.openings in.the - north wall. Mrs. Petrass. seconded the motion._ The­ motion -passed _ unanimously. 2. 1998 - 0206 -2 - 520 East Colfax, (LL)- Mr. Fine„ abstained, himself. from. consideration , of- this, application, ..as an employe'e_-.of —the, property- - owner.:.Mr. - Duvall...: reviewed-the . discussion . -from the previous meeting ".,indicating that ,..".the .issues. were. -the- -.same..., for. both_,, this application .and ....the. ,proposed__.Maoison School,. sign,.. in- that without.. regard ' to the - ,historic .designations.,,_ the ,proposals _. exceeded _.the sign height and area allowed in. the respective. -land use districts.' Mr. -F-ine has _i'ndicated that the owners .would. prefer to present the application unamended and proceed hence to seek,variance -from the Board of Zoning Appeals to allow -such excess. He reminded th commission. -that --the application proposed - re -use of ,an.-existing -sign Ipanel.,"1which. has ..been . removed".. from_ .th¢.:building,,•_on,..,A.:.new Irame..._at...;the sideyard. - This - would,- ,have. required A very_ close. proximity to-grade. which was not desirable. Mr. ...Wiener moved....for approval, of the sign as.. submitted. - .Mrs....,Hostetler seconded the-motion. The motion-passed unanimously. 3. 1998 -0209 - 804 (832) N. Lafayette B1vd..LL -, Mr., Duvall,,:. briefly ."reviewed.....the,.,issu�s., identified ,,,in.,- the. -Staff Report -which were: ._. 1) The same zoning issue as applied to 520 Colfax. 2) Location of the.sign in a area crowded with other landscaping.. He provided a new exhibit prepared „by, the _applicant showing the - sign. -at a reduced height.. -..and - .located in the yard at _the - corner - ,o,f__,.Park .Lane and. Lafayette. Mr.. Fine - -. reported for_ -. the Standards _& Maintenance Committee that they , had .met with the "'applicant'.s representative-to review the - issues. listed Above. He added Ghat, -the _committee recommended. ..a _masonry base -be added at -.a - later date- be iincluded. - in --this. COA. Mr. Fine..moved . -to approve _the application . -per the ._ Staff recommendation._with: the._ Stipulations that _the .new. location be at the. corner,._of, . Park. .Lane.. & _Lafaye.tte -.and _ that..the,. height.. -.be , reduced_._to. 5 ". 4 ", and that a brick, base be.-added-at. a, later, date.., to match,-the,,-texture and color of the school, with a." limestone - cap detail. -Mrs. Hostetler -seconded.,.-the... motion. The.motion passed unanimously. IV. Announcements & Miscellaneous Matters A. Mr -._ Oxian recommended that,­ identification -. be provided ,,for. HPC members . and distributed sample ID cards from different departments for comment. V. Adjournment The meeting was.adjourned•at 8:15 p.m. f MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING of the HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular- Monthly Meeting 7:30 p.m. -__ _ -_ - -__ -- County_ -- Commissioner's - Conference - Room Monday March 16, 1998 7th Floor County -City Building I. Call to Order John Oxian, President'-of the commission, brought the meeting to - order at 7:30 p.m. II. Roll Call Commission, members present were: Martha Choitz, Catherine Hostetler,• John Oxian, Janeanne Petrass,- J. Edward Talley, Jerry Wiener and Adrian -Fine came at 8:00. Commission staff present were: David Duvall, Director, Rhonda Saunders, Administrative Assistant, and Aladean DeRose,.Counsel. , Also attending the meeting,were: Robert L. Montel, Sherryl Montel, Jon Donald Olson, Toni Gianesi, Verl Sheets, Leo H. McCormick,Jr., Ken Herceg and Tom Evons. III. Public Hearing A. Certificates'of Appropriateness 1. 1998 -0213 - 112 S.'Lafayette (LL) Mr. Duvall read the Staff Report and distributed photographs. Mr. Oxian stated that since Me. Duvall was recommending approval of the first two. sections of the - application then the discussion should be directed toward the third section of the application, concerning the extra cladding,•where there is disagreement. Mr. Ken Herceg introduced himself and his associates - Mr. Don and Mr. _ Toni. Gianesi, then he turned the floor over to Mr. "Olson to explain the reasons for the extra cladding. Mr. 011on asked if Mr. Oxian had a specific way that he wanted to handle all'three sections of the application. Mr. Oxian stated that unless the architects had something to add to the first to sections then - he.would take 'a motion on. them. Mrs. - Saunders asked what each section contained. Mr. Oxian stated that the first section concerned -the structural repairs and the second section dealt with putting a new roof on the structure. Mrs. Choitz moved to approve part number one, the second paragraph under recommendations in the Staff Report, concerning structural repairs. Mrs. Petrass seconded the motion.. The,motion passed unanimously. Mrs. Choitz- moved to approve part number two concerning the roof replacement as- explained in the Certificate of Appropriateness application. Mrs.. Hostetler seconded-- the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Duvall noted that he had received documentation. from Don Olson, of a similar, cladding operation being performed at - Independence Hall in- Philadelphia. Mr-. Olson stated that he had copies of this information for the ' Commission members, which he handed out. Mr. Duvall reported that he had discussed' this project 'with Tom Meredith from the Department of Natural Resources,,Divis,ion of Historic'Preservation and Archaeology, during which Mr. Meredith stated that they were not aware that Philadelphia had - approved this and that Indiana was not Philadelphia.' Mr. Duvall stated that the plans for the rehabilitation of the courthouse still have-to be approved by the Division of- Historic Preservation and Archaeology, do' to the funding' - that. - is being used. Mr. Duvall noted that the State Office still has to do its revue. Mr. Oslon drew a few ,similarities between the Independence Hall project and St. Joseph County's, Second. Courthouse project, noting that they 'both had similar cupolas and the same amount of - deterioration. - Mr. Olson showed drawings and photos that displayed the deteriorated areas of the cupola and the areas that ,were originally covered in cladding. He then stated that if the exposed wood areas were properly painted instead of cladding them then the _ - shadow - lines - that distinguish the individual planks, for which Mr. Duvall had some concern about, would not be visible. Mr. also stated that one of the reasons for the extra cladding was the concern over the inaccessibility of the cupola future painting and repairs._ He referred. to 'the drawing that had the areas'that were originally cladded compared with the new areas to be cladded. Mr. Olson also' noted that the original plans included cladding the shutters- or louvers, however, upon further discussion, with Mr. Duvall they have -decided to table- this particular issue until there is a better understanding of how much_ cladding can be placed on the cupola. ' Mr. Olson passed around an - article from the St. Joseph Valley Register from th 1890s which describes the entire building'and iriore it described the use of cladding on the cupola. He noted that their - primary- concern was to preserve this piece of architectural fabric and that they do not believe that painting will meet this goal. Mr. Olson further noted that paint generally lasts fifteen years at'which time it would have to be painted again which is a difficult and time consuming affair, Mrs. Choitz asked if the original wood that is on the cupola would be retained -, 'repaired and restored as if it were going to remain exposed. Mr. Olson stated that the plan - is to retain as much of the original wood as possible, replacing the' pieces that could not be saved - and sanding, priming and treating the rest. Mrs. Choitz asked the cladding would be made of. Mr. Herceg stated that the cladding would either be made of _turn coated or turn coated stainless steal. Mr. Olson nqted that the reason the cladding ,would be made of a turn coated substance is that such a surface is easily painted and would better replicate the looks of*the cupola. Mrs.-Choitz asked if'the shutters would still be open to - the interior of the cupola. Mr.:Herceg stated that the shutters are not presently open. He further noted that the shutters are very large and that years ago someone placed a board behind the shutters closing all of them, possibly to. keep pigeons out_. Mr. Herceg stated that one of the reasons why they were hoping to. clad the louvers was to install up turn on the back of them to handle wind blown water. This would also leave a big enough gap so that'when the bell is repaired its sound can escape the cupola. Mrs. Choitz asked where air circulation would come from. Mr. Olson stated that in a structure like this one are ,a lot of air! gaps by virtue of its construction. There was some discussion over moisture penetration and how cladding would affect it. Mr. Herceg gave' an example .concerning future maintenance if the structure were simply repainted. He noted the picture of,the courthouse in the Commissioners' Office from 1972 when the entire structure was repainted and in the matter of 25 years it has deteriorated greatly, as the photos submitted with the application have.shown. There was some clarification and discussion over the amount of additional cladding that was being proposed. Mr. Oxian stated that the architects would -- -- -- have to decide - whether - they - were -- going use_ copper or stainless steel cladding. Mr. Herceg stated that they were leaning toward stainless steel.' Mr. Herceg stated that they -are going to use the -turn coated stainless steed because it is more durable and is closer'to the original material. Mr. Oxian - also-stated that if they were going to us the up turn behind the shutters and clad the shutters then that would need to be - included in application. More discussion over the louvers or shutters concerning ihe cladding and wind -blown rain. Mr. Oxian asked if the architects wanted to add the louvers to the 2 �QiJt Se �l(23 4� application., Mr._- Herceg .stated that they -would prefer more to work on this -issue ,.and__thsn.- submit,. -it to the - Comm ission separately. Mr. Oxian asked if.. -.the. parts .._.that.-- are.,.to. -.be cladded._:..and.,_,then - painted would - show all the _ .... existing details..... _ Mr.- Her-ceg- ,.stated- that - thev- ._are_ going,._to...reproduce every detail... so___that- .Tou... will .,.not -be- ..able to _tell......that- :.they_, have. been -- cladded. There- was , some discussion. -over ,._the._ - life. .span, of the turn__. coated_ stainless. steel. ... `Mr Choi .._asked.. - Mr,.., - Duvall ,i t . he. _ felt... the Division of _. Historic Preservation and.Archaeology would., have,.anv problems with_ the extra cladding. Mr.; Duvall- -responded .that .Mr.._ Meredith, the -staff architect - for- the Division of Historic and Archaeology, tends to be a purest preservationist - and thus does not often- give a lot of ' latitude .-in,-.terms of interpretations of appropriateness. Mr. Duvall noted that the Staff Report- -does reflect- his. own _ opinions and that ..he - personally feols'.. -that. ;if_._the.-..Commission - anproves the - additional cladding that the project may still have trouble with issue in _ the State .Offices. _Mr.. Duvall also - -. stated = that ..Mr.... Meredith. bas - not-read or seen of the and Mr. Meredith will have the final,decision..on the application because--.the- state has - so -much- money..involved..in the project.. Mr. Oxian...s.tated., -that -if ._,the_, Commission - ., approved - ...the__ additional. cladding and _ the State , did_,.,, not-.­.approve,-­it----then -..the .- Commission s • Certificate of Appropriateness would mean. nothing.. .So,- in- reaction-- to -,the, Commission should only _ make..a_ - tentative approval until -the State makes, decision_ then the Commission ,should have.:- another -hearing.,to make _a_ final.- decision, at- time the _louve'rs. can -be added. : Duvall stated - -he_ would- have to defer to -council,, but, he believes-the . Commission would need ,.to . get._a - waiver of . the < statutory time : period. _.Mr.... Oxian stated .that-he-knew­ this, _but, he ,still did .. " not - want ..to._.give - -a definite _.decision..,_ There..�was .discussion ...over...the:.State review processes,afid the legality of- making a motion and ho word such a motion. Mr:,..,.Olson ,interjected that. ..there -is,-,,a, -time' issue to be considered -and, . such would--it „be possible.,,,to , - the -motion, so_, that if .they did not add the extra cladding that.the project could then.go through and if the additional-, cladding- that ,,.xo.:.be .implemented let, come-back to the Commission- - for., approval.- Mr,.- Herceg further.. clarified -by ,asking the Commission--to, go.- ..ahead.;_and.._approve. - the_._ Certit .icate <:_of..,Appropriateness for repairing %and restoring the wood_as a.separate issue and'then•if more cladding _,.is .approved.. -.the. State..., have_.. that.. issue -.. come,._ back -..._to, the,._Commission..,to .be' approved-- at, .a,,later - .time -.- Mr.,., Oxian....stated.'that .:the- Commission.- could split the, application. =._.. s:Mr.,.__.Olson_,,stated. that Mr. _.Meredith ,..did - ..have. all- the ,...necessary material- and.that he is planning to come to South Bend - at the -end of March. There_.was ' a._lot_ of. discussion--over-how- ward • such_ A. - motion.. Mrs. Choitz moved to follow,-the. proposed-re of-the..cupola „as the, metal-- c ladd i ng,,.- currently. exists. and - .approve, the.. Certificate .- of_,Appropriateness with those items that are mentioned in that part-of.-the - certificate. : Talley seconded -,the- motion. Mr. Oxian.disagreed with -the motion as it stands. He stated that he - -feels_. _the - :cladding - would - do - a better job of . protecting the cupola. There was discussion... over the wording -of ..the- notion. Mrs. •DeRose stated that it seems; that the Commission is approving -the application per the staff recommendation by not addine anv additional cladding. She further noted that the next step would be., to come back, with a new Certificate of Appropriateness .. application. .proposing__the- extra cladding. , -_Mrs. - DeRose -also stated that by approving the staff-.recommendations may tell the individuals in the State office that the Commission disapproves of the extra_ cladding.. Mrs. Choitz- amended- her,motion.to approve the_extra cladding that has-been proposed by the Architects'-pending its approval 'by the -State Historic - Architect. Mrs. - ­- stated that... the Commission would. have then approved the Staff's _Recommendation and conditionally approved - a Certificate -of Appropriateness as pronosed subiect.to the States decision: Mr. Talley seconded..the amendment: The motion ..passed. unanimously..: The motion with.._..the: amendment passed unanimously. 2. 1998 =0217 - 60500 Bremen (LL)- Mr. Oxian asked the owner, Mr- Montel, if he would like "the application placed into a 'committee for a final recommendation .to be given next month. 'Mr. Montel•stated that he would like to start getting bids on the work. He also no that he'had sent photographs-with the application. Mrs. Saunders stated that 'those photographs were being circulated. Mr. Oxian explained. _to Mr*. Montel -that he 'would like to .place _ the, application - into the Standards and Maintenance Committee, headed. by Adrian, Fine, so that they can go over the proposal and give a final recommendation to the Commission next month. Mr. Oxian further stated that this would be in place of having.an open discussion at this meeting. " Mr. Montel asked 'if the Committee ;would be in contact with him. Mr. Oxian stated that, they would be in contact to discuss the application., Mr. Duvall-'noted that the Commission needed to get a time waiver, from Mr. Montel. There was some discussion over whether 'or not a waiver was needed, in the end it was decided that one.was required. 3. 1998 -0225 - 515 Riverside drive Mr. Oxian stated that instead of presenting the staff _report since this application was not complete that it be put into the Standards and Maintenance Committee. Mr. Tally moved to place application 1998 -0225 into the Standards and Maintenance "Committee. Mrs. Petrass seconded the - motion.. The motion passed unanimously. 4:,1998 -0305 -.1127 East Wayne Street - Window replacement and tuck pointing _Mr. .Duvall ,presented the staff' report and circulated photographs. Mr. McCormick - Jr. stated that he wanted to amend his application to include two more windows located at the back of the house in the northwest corner. He further noted that the existing steel casement - windows were badly rusted making most of them .inoperable. Mr. McCormick stated that he has chosen the Eagle brand window as replacements. -Mr. Duvall stated that these were the same windows that Mr. Hojenacki, another resident -of the East Wayne Historic District, used to replace his steel casement windows_ not to long ago. Mr. Talley asked. if the two new windows Mr. McCormick. was proposing were, located in the picture designated as rear of Mr. Duvall asked if Mr. McCormick would, point out the windows he was referring -to._ Mr. Oxian asked if the front windows were -going to be replaced. Mr. ,`McCormick *stated. that he was, not replacing the front windows because they are - very .distinctive and ornate. Mrs. Choitz asked if anything was going to be done to the arched stairwell window located on - the side of the house. Mr. McCormick stated that it would be replaced with a new Eagle window that also has an ' arch- in 'it to replicate the existing window. Mr. Talley moved to approve the application. Mrs. Choitz asked if just the windows were being approved_ and. not the tuck pointing. Mr. Duvall stated that the tuck pointing was generally a staff approval and that he does recommend approval of it. Mr. Wiener seconded•the motion. The'motion passed with Mr. Fine voting 'it:. 5. 1998 - 0305 -2- 621 Lincolnway East - Garage Demolition " -' - - 'Mr.-Duvall photographs and presented the staff report. -Mr. Duvall also noted that the owner was not present,` however, Mr. Sheets was present. Mr. Sheets stated that he resides in the house with an option -to • buy it on land contract. Then, he passed around 'the plans for a new garage to replace the existing garage. Mrs. Choitz asked if the.new- garage would be located 'in -the same spot as the existing garage. Mr. Sheets stated that he wants to have the new garage it about the same location, but; have the - .doors facing the alley. He then passed around a drawing showing the relationship of the new 4 1 ' garage to the house and alley. Mrs. Choitz asked if any trees would be removed.- Mr. Sheets stated, that there are two trees located near the .garage, one of which is dead, that would have to be removed. Mr. Oxian asked if his intent was to demolish the existing garage. Mr. Sheets stated that his original intentions 'were to demolish the garage and- not put anything -in its place. He further noted -that the garage is in bad disrepair and that it is a very small one' stall garage. Mr. Sheets stated that he did - not know. what it would take to repair the garage and that he would prefer to put the money into, building a new garage._ Mr. Oxian asked if Mr. Duvall was suggesting that Mr. Sheets save the, existing - garage and add on to it. Mr. Duvall concurred. There was some discussion' over how to add on- to. the existing garage. Mr. Sheets stated that his main 'reason for coming to the meeting', was 'to get a better understanding of what his limitations were.. Mr. Oxian stated that if the Commission voted to save the garage then Mr: Sheets,would have to come in- with new plans for adding on to the garage. Mr: Fine asked Mr. Duvall where the issue stands with Code Enforcement -and the demolition order they have placed on the garage. Mr. Duvall stated -that Mr — Clifford continued the case to April ,23, which is after the next Commission meeting to allow the Commission twice before the issue I is brought back before Code Enforcement. Mr. Fine asked what Code Enforcement is requiring be done to ,'the structure as far as- repairs. Mr. Duvall,stated -that the structure needs to be real igned, bearing plates replaced, roof replaced, soil around base removed and the doors fixed and rehung. Mrs. Choitz asked if the garage was large enough to' hold a. full size car. Mr., Duvall stated. that it was not. ,Mrs. Choitz asked if Mr. Sheets could'use the garage for a work shop. Mr. Sheets stated that there are a lot different ways, he could use the garage. Mrs. Choitz also noted how -well the garage fit with the style of the house. Mr. Sheets stated that if he was to repair the garage he would not put another structure on it. There was some discussion over the size of the lot that the house and garage sit on -and its neighbor, which Mr. ,Sheets also owns and whether�or -not a garage could be built on commercial property. Mrs. Choitz stated that she believes the garage has merit. Mr. - Oxian stated that the; main issue was _whether.._or- not�the;:-Commiss -ion .,was. going-to-save the' garage . _ - Mr. Fine stated that typically the Commission has not ,allowed a demolition with out knowing what would replace the structure. Mr. Sheets asked if an option of replacement would be nothing. Mr. Oxian stated that in his opinion the garage should be saved and that' Mr. Sheets be allowed to come back'before the Commission at a later date with plans for an addition. Mr: Oxian further noted that if the Commission votes to save the , garage that. Mr. Sheets ,would then have to- comply with the Commissions standards of restoration which are stricter then Code Enforcements. Mr. Sheets stated that he understood this. Mr. Fine moved to follow the staff recommendation in saving the ,garage and, allow Mr. Sheets to get, bids and prices for restoration costs. Mr. Talley seconded 'the motion. . There was some discussion over the clarity of the motion. Mr. Oxian stated that Mr. Sheets should be allowed to'start repairs as soon as possible so that when he goes before Code Enforcement he , can show the progress- that has been, made and that he is working with the Historic Preservation Commission in- saving the garage. - Mr. Duvall .stated that if the Commission is only considerin _ y g the demolition- issue- and--not- the -- repair - work - - the - Commission should then just -deny the application. -.Mr'. Oxian asked if Mr. Fine was going to .include the possibility of adding on to the garage, in,his motion. There was some discussion over the contents of.the_application. Mr. Oxian asked if Mr. Sheets would add on to the garage, Mr. Sheets stated that he would most likely not on to it. Mr. stated that all that needed to be' done would be to deny the application and work on_staff approvals, to rehabilitate the garage. Mr. Fine amended his motion to deny the Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of the garage and that -the Commission 5 recommend the rehabilitation *of the structure with the help of- Mr. 'Duvall Mr. Talley seconded the amended motion.,- The motion passed with Mrs. Petrass against. 6. 1998 -0226 - 1321 East Wayne - Back yard privacy fence - Mr. Duvall presented the ,staff report and circulated photographs. Mr. Oxian asked the owner, Mr. Evons, if the rest of the fence was also in the stockade style. Mr. Evons stated that it was' all in the stockade style and that the new portion of the fence would be left bare to weather naturally like similar fences in the neighborhood. Mrs. Hostetler moved to approve the application as-recommended by staff. Mrs_. Petrass seconded the motion. The passed unanimously. 7. -0302 - 1308 East Wayne Street = Rear addition and'roof Mr. Duvall circulated photographs and plans and presented, the staff report. Mrs..Hostetler moved to approve the application as recommended by staff. Mr. Fine seconded the mot-ion.. The motion passed unanimously. IV. Regular Business A. Approval of Minutes Mr. Oxian stated that he had already handed in his correction for the January 19, 1998 minutes'. -Mr. Talley asked if there were supposed to minutes for the March 5, meeting.- Mr. Oxian stated that there was a meeting held, on March 5. however, the minutes have not been prepared as of yet. 1. January. 19, 1998 Mr. Oxian ,moved to approved the minutes as corrected. Mrs..Choitz seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 2. February 17, 1998 Mr.- Oxian noted -that this meeting was not- official because of the lack of a quorum. Mrs. Petrass moved .to approve the minutes. Mrs. Choitz seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. B.. Treasurer's Report Mr. Wiener passed out the, final treasurer's _report for 1997. Mr. Wiener indicated that it shows that the Commission stayed under budget. Mrs. - Hostetler made a- motion to accept. _the report. -_ -.- Mrs._- Petrass seconded- the - - - motion-. The•vote- was unanimous. C. Mr. Duvall reported that the County'Commissioners have requested an up date on the Commissions five year plan, which the Commission does not have. He also noted that there was a meeting of division department heads to discuss five year plans, during. which the heads praised the Commissioners, for having the meeting. Mr. Duvall stated that this shows that the Commissioners are trying to open lines of - communication to all departments. He also reported that he had given the Commissioners a letter, stating that the Historic Preservation Commission- did _not have a 'five year plan. Mr: Duvall noted that he and Mr. Oxian will be creating five year plan. There was some, discussion over the fact that the Commission has 'received more updated computers, however, there .are no monitors to go -.with them. Mr. Oxian stated that he will have Mr. ,'Duvall write a five year plan which will be brought before the Commission for everyone's in put. • 0 D.' Committee Reports 1. Budget and Finance None 2. Historic Districts Mrs. Hostetler stated that the Committee has reviewed the guidelines for North St. Joseph Street.. She also reported that the Committee had gone 'over the guidelines for the Riverbend .Historic District to see how they would to the new district and how they could be expanded upon with line drawings, t colored paper, - .clearer language and examples of - what - is appropriate and not appropriate to make them more user friendly. Mrs. Hostetler stated,that the = guidelines are awaiting a computer that is formatted - to _handle_ them. Mr. Duvall concurred that the current software was not capable of desktop - publishing. Mr. Oxian asked if the Committee had started on the. guidelines for the Cushing Street District. Mrs. Hostetler stated that they have not.. 3. Historic Landmarks Mr. Oxian stated that he wants to place 12670 State .Road 23, regarding the removal of part of the property from Landmark.Designation, into Public Hearing for next - months meeting,. - He also noted that in his opinion the _Commission should not allow this. - - However, since the owner has requested to give a presentation.it will be,placed under public hearing in next months meeting. _ 4. Standards and Maintenance Mr. Oxian stated that he wants to expand the Committee to include.Mrs. Petrass as an alternate, to better accommodate the amount of work going through that Committee'. 5. Legal Mrs. DeRose`stated that she had acquired samples -of identification cards from Code' Enforcement and the', Health Department to get ideas for identification , cards for Commission members and staff to be used in the field. There was some discussion -over the style of the cards and the possibility of making business cards for - the members of the Liaison Committees.' Mr. Oxian asked if someone could-donate to the Commission.- Mrs. stated that since the'Commission was _a_ part_ of -the. -City of - South -Bend and St: Joseph County any - charitable donation would be 'tax deductible.,'She also stated -that the donor should discuss the matter with their accountant first. E. -- Staff Reports' 1. -C of A_ Staff Approvals None 2. DHPA Grant Status Mr: Duvall reported -that -the Westerly Group, the consultants on the Leeper Park plan, made a public presentation last week to discuss the plans. He reported - that they gave a brief discussion of the history of the park and then presented three possible preservation plans for Leeper Park. The plans ranged from a low impact plan consisting of a very conservative.park maintenance plan to a. plan that would realize the parks original plan by Kesler. - Mr'.- Duvall stated that' the Westerly. Group would be back before -the Commission with a draft document - of a .single plan at the May meeting-for review and comments. �Mr,. Talley asked where the Leepef Park nomination to the National'Register was at. Mr. Duvall" stated that I it was still being bated around in the review board and - that he had just received another 'review asking 'for changes in the nomination.' Mr. Talley asked if.'the reason for all the difficulties was , .because of Mr. Cairns, who wrote the nomination. Mr. Duvall stated that it 7 probably was do to him. There was some discussion over the where abouts'of Mr. Talley's research material. 3. Liaison Committee Elections Mr. Duvall reported that the new liaison committee procedures -book was-mailed out a month ago to all existing liaison committee members and to all of the people who, had attended the Access meetings. He further stated letters have been prepared with ballots, but, they have not been sent out. Mr: Duvall noted that he has received calls from East Wayne Street District to hold off on having - an election because they have .their own peculiar election process and need time to decide what to do with their existing committee. V. Old Business None VI. New Busines.s Mr. Oxian noted the request for an amendment of a designated landmark at 166401 Walnut Road. Mr. Duvall described the house and location noting that there were approximately 20 acres originally associated with the house. Since its designation the iproperty has been split and sold. He noted that the current owners of the vacant 16.8 acres want to build a house on the land. Mr. Duvall stated that he had`told the -owner that they could. either request the property be removed from landmark- or apply- for a 'Certificate of Appropriateness to build a house there. He notes that do to the short time frame the owner was looking at it is probable that he will submit an• application on top of his request for removal so that he can - go - ahead on schedule with the construction. Mrs. Choitz expressed some concern over the possibility -of the owner building more than one house on the lot if the " designation were removed. Mr. Oxian stated that the removal of.a section of a designated landmark should not be permitted, because, it would; set a 'bad precedent. Mr. Oxian sent the request to the Landmarks,Committee. - VII. Hearing of Visitors None - VIII. -- Announcements & Miscellaneous- Matters None IX. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. 8 FINANCIAL REPORT HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION January 1 thru December 31, 1997 �� 13, G c"� Expenses Revenue Balance fwd from county 218.22 Received from county 25700.00 Received from CDBG 15832.00 County appropriation 3500.00 Received from grant sources 13808.29- Director Salary 22200.00 AsstDirector Salary 15832.00 Office & grant expenses 5871.15 Grant Contractor Expenses 11593.97 TOTALS 55497.12 55558.51 i �� 13, G c"� Staff Approvals 1. 1998 -0330 - 710 Arch inckind re -roof 2. 1998 -0330 Part A - 621 Lincolnway East in kind re -roof of garage, repair garage doors,and replace siding on garage as needed. 3. 1998 -0409 - 1049 Riverside Dirve - In -kind re-'roof.