HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 1998AGENDA OF THE REGULAR MEETING
of the
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Regular monthly meeting County Commissioner's
7:30 p.m. Conference Room
Tuesday, February 1.7, 1998 7th Floor County City Bldg.
I. Call to Order
II. Roll Call
III. Public Hearing
A. Certificate of Appropriateness Applications
1) 211 North Michigan Street - Morris Civic Auditorium LL; demolition
of stagehouse, construction of expanded stagehouse and exitway,
replacement marquee, door and window repair., and replacement
doors.
2) 520 East Colfax Dille -Probst House LL; removal of existing
shingle sign and installation of new monument ground sign."
3) 804 North Lafayette - Madison School - installation of monument•
ground sign
IV. Regular Business_
A. Approval of Minutes
1. January 19, 1998
B. Treasurer's Report
C. Correspondence
D. Committee Reports
1. Nominating Committee
2. Budget &_ Finance -
3. Historic Districts
a. River -Bend LHD expansion (North St. Joseph St.)
b. Project Access - Liaison Books
4. Historic Landmarks
a. 60500 Breman Highway (SR 331)
5. Standards & Maintenance
6. Legal
a) Extension of.period for consideration of COAs
E. Staff Reports
1. C of A Staff Approvals (see attachment)
2. Legal
3. DHPA Grant status .
a. 1997-98
4. Proposed Local Historic Districts
a. South St. Joseph St.
b. Cushing St.
c. North St. Joseph St.
V. Old Business
VI. New Business
A. Re -rating of miscellaneous structures for IHSSI
B. Request for amendment of designated Landmark - 12670 SR 23
V -II. Hearing of Visitors
VIII. Announcements & Miscellaneous Matters
IX. Adjournment
A
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT
APPLICATION -- 1.998-0129
PROPERTY -- 211 N. Michigan Street
South Bend, IN
OWNER -- Morris Performing Arts Center
DESIGNATION -- LL
RATING -- Outstanding 0/13
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE/HISTORIC CONTEXT
The Palace Theatre was developed in 1921 and 1.922 by the Palace Theatre
Corporation. The Palace Theatre Corporation was formed by several prominent
local businessmen in 1921 with the purpose of acquiring, building and
maintaining opera houses, theaters and other places of entertainment. The new
group engaged Jacob Handelman, a promoter from Chicago, to handle the fund
raising and actual purchasing of the needed land. They then hired J.S. Aroner
to design the theater and the Ralph Sollitt Company to build it. In 1921 the
Palace Theatre Corporation, through Jacob Handelman purchased the land at the
corner. of Colfax and Michigan from Alexander Lippman by way .of a 99 year
lease. Immediately. after the purchase the contractor began construction of
the new theater. The'.Palace Theatre was constructed to show moving pictures
and was also the new home for the Orpheum Theater, a vaudeville theater that
had opened in 1910. When the, theater was finished the Palace Theatre
Corporation leased space to various entrepreneurs, for a restaurant,'jewelry
store and a furniture store. The grand opening of the Palace Theatre
occurred in 1922, 2,700 people attended the first*show. In 1929 the first
movie with sound also known as a "Talkie" was shown in the Palace Theatre.
The last vaudeville show that was performed in the Palace Theatre occurred on
March 1, 1930.
In the 1920's the Palace Theatre Corporation was in financial trouble and 'by
1930 the property went into receivership and eventually sold to the Orpheum
Theater Corporation in August of 1930. In 1933 a suit to foreclose on the
$875,000.00 mortgage was file by the Union Trust Company and over the next
five years the theatre was operated by a receiver. In 1935, the Palace
Building's 99 year lease was surrendered to the Lippman Family of Valparaiso,
after a bomb was exploded in the Palace Cafe .that heavily damaged the
property.
In 1938 the theater was being operated by the South Bend Theatre, Inc.
In 1959 the owners announced that the theater building would be demolished -at
which time the. E.M. Morris Foundation stepped in and purchased the property.
and subsequently presented the Theatre Building to the City of South Bend.
— - -- .The City also tried to purchase the Palace Building for use as a convention
center,.but, the remaining Lippman heir refused the City's offer. On August
5,.1959. the name of the Palace Theatre was changed to the Morris Municipal
Auditorium -and was dedicated the Morris Civic Auditorium on October 20, 1960.
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT
PROPOSED CHANGE
Applicant proposes to:
1) Demolish the existing Stage House and construct a new and larger stagehouse
including enclosure of pedestrian alley for egress. New stagehouse to
include integral architectural signage.
2) Remove existing awning canopy and illuminated message board and install new
Marquee(s)
3) Replace miscellaneous secondary exit doors at alley locations
4) Generally rehabilitate the exterior features including repointing,
rehabilitation of main entry doors, minor window repairs and painting.
All per documentation submitted.
STANDARDS
The Preservation Guidelines for Local Landmarks state:
C. Renovations and Additions
2. Construction and Style
All work should be done in the architectural
compatible with that of the original structure.
or covers existing significant stylistic detail
change which adds detail of another style will no
style and in a technique
Change that alters, removes,
shall not be permitted. A
be permitted
3. Material
Additions and improvements involving any new material in the landmark should
be the same material as the original. It should be the same size and texture.
An alternative material may be allowed if it duplicates the original.
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 demolition of the landmark shall be responsible for this
documentation.
RECOMMENDATION
This project includes work at both the Morris and the Palais Royale. Though
connected and appearing as one building, the two are separate' and individual
as legal building entities. The Morris is a designated Local Landmark and is
listed in the Multiple Resource Area listing. of the National Register of
Historic Places. The Palais is not a Local Landmark but is individually listed
on the National Register. Inasmuch as the project is being designed and
contracted as a single project the documents submitted make reference to
changes which require COA and which do not (e.g. the marquee at the Morris
requires approval whereas the marquee at the Palais does not).
The first issue of major concern is, of_course, the demolition of the -existing
-- stagehouse which is of sound condition. The present facility has, however,
been found deficient for programmatic requirements in' the staging of modern
road—show productions. As,the principal venue for. such productions, not only
in South Bend, but in the Michiana region, it is apparent that this major
alteration is necessary for the historical theater to continue its established
role in the community.
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT
r
Although the existing stagehouse carries some historical associations (i.e.
the alley grid, public facade versus service corridor distinctions, etc.) the
affected portions of the building are essentially blank facades which in the
earlier urban context were not of principal public interest or importance. The
clearing of this block along main street has significantly altered this
context and the proposed expanded stagehouse is intended to address this new
urban context. Staff believes that the continued viability of the performing
arts center with its attendant concern and focus on historic preservation can
justify this proportional loss.of historical integrity.
The proposed replacement stagehouse is to extend from the proscenium back
through the alley. Additional staging areas with lower roof/ceiling
requirements are located at the rear and include truck loading docks.
Mechanical equipment_ located above these areas is to be masked by metal screen
wall. The exterior is to be clad in a pre -cast concrete panel system. The
final design of surface articulation for this system has not been finally
determined. In the drawings submitted, the walls may be characterized as
horizontally ribbed panels with a smooth surfaces coping or cornice line which
is integrated into an inscribed sign panel. Staff has had no opportunity to
review the integral color proposed for these to date.
Staff has discussed this treatment with the architects with the hope of
finding some motif which might be .more obviously associated with the Rococo
facades. A running bond ashlar pattern and some articulation of the cornice
ornamentation was suggested. However, form related costs must be given strong
weight in this' cost sensitive project, and the architects may need
accommodation in developing an economical system.
The removal of existing- fabric•.canopy and illuminated sign panel are
necessary for the restoration of a more appropriate marquee. Though the
original marquee was wider by -a bay on, each side than the proposed
replacement, its general motifs are revived in the proposal including the
lantern finials.
Several existing flush metal doors are being replaced at emergency exit and
delivery receiving locations. These are being replaced with similar flush
metal doors which have superior sound buffering specifications. At one
location, an existing window opening is to be closed with brick to match its
surrounding area and'to be recessed to articulate the opening.
The existing original. front entry doors are being restored in place and
windows are being stabilized for future restoration. Masonry joints are being
repointed as required. Each of these items may be approved by Staff.
In general Staff recommends approval of the application with the reservation
that final cladding of the stagehouse receive additional consideration.
DBD
2/10/98
f
MORRIS PERFORMING ARTS CENTER PALAIS ROYALE SCOPE -OF -WORK
EXTERIOR
A. PRINCIPAL ELEVATIONS (SOUTH S EAST)
1. Masonry (Terra -Cotta)
Existing masonry walls will be pointed with mortar to match original mix, color
texture, strength and profile. Rebuilding of some Palais Royale parapets will be required.
2. Wood Windows
Existing (original) windows will be restored in place.
3. Parapet Lanterns
Missing lanterns will not be restored at this time.
4. Marquee
Missing marquees will be replaced with simulated and simplified design.
5. Theatre Doors
Existing (original) doors to theater will be restored in place.
6. Vertical Theatre sign/roof mounted Palais Royale sign
Missing signs will not be reconstructed at this time.
7. Palais Royale Entry Doors
Existing (anachronistic) doors will be removed and new doors will be installed to
replicate original doors.
8. Store front at Palais Royale
Existing (anachronistic) storefronts will remain. Store fronts will not be restored at
this time.
KESSLER
ASSOCIATES INC
409 E JEFFERSON ARCHITECTS
SUITE 600
DETROIT
MICHIGAN 48226
313-9635906
FAX 313-9638552
B. ALLEY ELEVATIONS
1. Masonry (Brick)
Existing masonry walls will be pointed with mortar to match ma, color, texture,
strength and profile of original. Rebuilding of some Palais Royale parapets will be required
2. Steel Windows
Some existing windows will be restored in place. Some existing windows will be
removed and their opening sealed to provide protected exits. Missing windows in openings will not
be replaced. Openings will be sealed with bricks to match exiting. Bricks will be set back 4" to
provide a blind window thus leaving trace of original design.
3. . Demolition
Existing (original) stagehouse will be removed to allow for new stagehouse
construction. ;
4. Theatre Exit Doors
Existing (original) exit doors will be replaced with new acoustic doors to meet
sound isolation criteria.
5. Palms Royale Service Doors
Existing (original) metal service doors which are in poor condition will be replaced with new metal
service doors at new locations. Existing openings will be sealed with bricks to match existing. Brick
will be set back 4" to provide a blind window thus leaving trace of original design.
6. Fire Escape
S
4 Existing (original) fire escape on north elevation of theatre will be restored.
Existing (original) fire escape in alley between Palais Royale and Theatre will be removed to allow
for construction of a new protected fire exit.
� C. ROOF
s
1. Roofing
New roofing will match existing in color on all structures. t;
2. Black standing seam metal roofing will be installed on east face of stagehouse to serve as snow
deflector per code requirements.
S
1
?.. ww.a..:..rnnya3c9tMrttAta.au..s*-.maw:xa.arw--........ww.nnw.[-m'.mt-.awwN.cK+.ut'nrw'w.1..wF.cM'aeL+Vc-1tait�.+YM.'*+aaw...a.e�nar.u.t. a.-v.n'.- 1 r.J
- KESSLER
ASSOCIATES INC
ARCHITECTS -
It
3. Roof top mechanical units painted black, will be installed at new stagehouse and on the Palais
Royale. Units on the low roof of the stagehouse will be screened by lightweight horizontal
ribbed metal units. Units located on Palais Royale will not be screened due to placement which
allows for a 45 -degree visual cut-off. Some duct work will be exposed on the roof of the theatre
similar to that seen in Historic photographs.
i D. NEW STAGEHOUSE CONSTRUCTION i
s
1. Concrete
Precast horizontal ribbed textured concrete panels in color similar to existing brick (Munsell Beige
5YR 6/2 Beige to Salmon 2.5YR 6/6).
2. Roof Top Unit Screens
Lightweight horizontal ribbed metal units in color similar to existing brick.
3. Sign
`Morris Performing Arts Center' graphic developed integral with precast concrete panel. Graphic to
be illuminated by framing spotlight mounted on roof below.
4. Doors
New metal doors.
II. INTERIORS
A. General Notes
1. Standards
The architects have used the Secretary of Interior Standards as a guide in decision making, ie:
- We have attempted to preserved distinguishing original qualifies of the building
- We have avoided the removal or alterations of distinctive architectural features.
- We have not designed elements which seek to create an earlier appearance.
- Changes which have taken place In the course of time are not believed to have acquire
significance of their own.
- Distinctive architectural features are to be repaired rather than replaced when possible.
Replacement were required will be based on Historic evidence and not conjectural design.
- Surface cleaning if funded will be undertaken with the gentlest means possible.
6
- - - - - KESSLER
- - ASSOCIATES INC
ARCHITECTS
2. Treatment Zones
RESTORATION - This designation is given to interior areas of mabmum architectural importance.
These areas will receive the highest level of accurate restoration treatment possible. Restoration
Treatment Zones include: Theater lobby and related circulation spaces; Sound and fight lock &
Auditorium and related circulation spaces. (Modifications in the auditorium will be made to
accommodate theatrical lighting and loud speaker along with staff control positions). Paint research will
establish original colors which will be replicated only if conservation techniques are not possible.
Anachronistic seating will be removed and replaced with new seating to simulate original. E)asting
original seating will be restore. Anachronistic orchestra level seating units will be replaced and respaced
to meet code and patron comfort requirements. Original drapery, seat fabric and carpet are
presently being researched at the Marshall Fields Archives in Chicago.
The Ballroom of the Palais Royale will be Restoration Zone.
PRESERVATION - This designation is given to areas of importance which may or may not have suffered a
loss of integrity, or the original design was not of great significance. - These areas are available for a use
which best meet the functional needs of the building. Nevertheless, original interior finishes and details will
be treated with sensitivity. Preservation Treatment Zones of the theatre include: Under Lobby area & Toilet
Rooms.
Palms Royale Preservation area include: Entry Lobby at 1st and 2nd floor and related spaces; and
the mezzanine.
REHABILITATION - This designation is given to areas of minor importance. Most have lost original integrity
or original design was not of great significance. These areas are available for a use which best meets the
functional needs of the building. Nevertheless, original interior finishes and details will be treated with
sensitivity. The zones of the building with these attributes may have some features of "Restoration" and/or
'Preservation.' Rehabilitation Treatment Zones of the theatre include the projection room, basement
mechanical support spaces and the attic.
Palms Royale Rehabilitation areas include: Basement mechanical and storage spaces.
NEW CONSTRUCTION - This designation is given to the stagehouse which will be a totally new structure
designed to meet the functional requirements of a modem Performing Arts Center.
s 4
yam.... ..-..« n,.-._, .r. .w, ae.:. ., ..-... .. ., .-. �,. ..... ...._....._ ... ,.r ,..,..., ......+._.-...o.,
KESSLER
ASSOCIATES INC
ARCHITECTS
�r
k
• ''S � "; 4 �Sfit.. YY'-�
..:,,,;� �': t��l: 1�Ii�If�� r it .;yr•.i1�t i��'.i
t�,,rr, 'G, y;:M�� :.�� z..• ' (t � p" ..^,"�tl•P f yer �, y .. i k
IC
l
:,► w, �..� a� fsfi..
77
_
...,•....,, ` ,ry�!yr'rW" `P r,�1 t i,.��'f �3 Y ,'
I�ror� i�J���. /• �lfl, � f •K.S.��fvv���_ � �t i...,.ri 1/,t kA4vtSF�. iN1 _: � ��
AIfx111!lJII 1t1XIr4tr
r ,., • ., r T u't N., y;:'e " , � t i"`tf,�' :,'' 1A25 !F ..i'h` S�t1t ,� !w .,,^ '. a
h
1� a ik �> � -'�r, r ;r�•+Mcr,� o !
4 � _
f 11 j �f
t'i3l",�'Tk �7...: _._. i i y, ., y Fitif.{2'�f�^? , � k .,. z,s. ,.. . , ,,,t..,. ,.,s, .•YV'.sra
i T"Irril
-77
ARM
70,
AkVV
I
F
>t `
((( � ,� ''Ti Tib t•t "iM�
�`• c'' ��ti-y- �„` � �. \ `� � , r ! I-) i I.i 1 I i � I 1 i I i I I I � ... r+�. .
-fillfTF
is.'ri'- z•• � - �'� .�"'• ✓�' rJ- .n c .tel s-7�' i �ar ♦ t •. �.� �
• .7 7 � r � :p• -F+ "�R�a 'F.�i'�jr-"f''4'f!"'I„• -K ; d�
•. ' 3 ^ ✓ = - .air
Y r
F
• K 1
r _
u rP
ly
w
� zf7,_
44
4 k
1 �— tt 'n ? r "r ' ' i z' �FF '•5, � -�' -'" '.K ( 1 , i'k
rYYM1in ..-
.j
^Y
,
.. fit. f .� ,..'w.,,.. !/` t/ -.�..: Tih• �.N
...a: M«.+w.sa..�"_` 1♦ y
W
'00
nrih*r,.'. 3Ct� .;'iT,h.t x»; :.........:. {' ...a«•;..+.+'e"-k'-.'•.�'..i•' =^w >.
�f r_
MORRIS. PERFORMING
ARTS CENTER.
211 North Michigan Street.
South Bend, Indiana 46601
Project No
97.062
Key Plan
!
NEW STAGE%
i
HOUSE'!.
PALAIS=EXISI'1NG�%
ROYALE
THEATRE.
Top_af Poropel toff.- _. - - _.,^.� -.- _ - _ _.^ _ _ _. _. ^.._._ _._.� ^._ ^ ^.- -._ _ -._._._._._._._._.^._._.—
Eley 185'-8'
Mak G a
El" 171'-2. _ - ^ - ... _..._.,.^. _._ -._._ _. _ _ ^ _ ----- ----------------------- _ _ _. _. _.^ .^._..._._ _ -
top of Parapet
-- ---
^ --
El. 138'-3'
—
Tap of Porop<T
- - - - -
I
". - - i
EIe+ 178'-7"
I
I
i
I I
Slope lend !
El,, 98--Y• - - - - - -
,4 Basement Ee.N - - - - -
%3`1 EAST ELEVATION
HVAC -ROOF TOP
UNITS
t
.r!•: ;: :! 's' � . i i j ! �` !I ! II ! ' � � I} t i1 I Ij I' i ! 11 it I 'i 4 t 4 ii I' +. I;
>Li
Ll
11
RESTORE
ESASH "Nc P.) ..Tp
f �_ I
L�.�J I I EXIrS'RN� I I KEXIIG
SIMULATED
HWORIC MARQUEE
oa oa oa as oo as oo as as as as as
� RESTORE EXISTING
\ REStORE: EXISTING ORIGIN& DOORS OICTRANS06A OOOftS TRANSOM
�. I vbr- ;2+vr �!;�sr• +� �ti�r -..i`'-sa'.n.r ar%^'c+w`"._""'`.'�L.:.f' .
PREFUSHED METAL
COPING
too of Poropet rVoR — _ — _ _ — _ —
Elev 185"-B'
PRECAST CONCRETE
PANEL SYSTEM
iNOR+ZONtAL RIB
— — — — — — EXTURE) — — — —
:kv
----------------------
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----_.^ ------------^ -------------^^^__.--.^ I
I t
,p d Poropet _ _ _ 4 _ _ --
. - ....- .. - —
PREiINISHED SMOOTH
.I SURFACE METH. .-..�.. .�.x._._... ,.�.,.., .,�.
PANEL SYSTEM f/ i
— —SCREEN WALL
D of Parapet
H 128._2.'— - ...� ..
11A LUJ LU -1
...... HIM
RI FRI
EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING AND RESTAURANT
�..., ..........�».�.. ...y_.�.�.�_..,—,.__.,............... __....K._r_,... I ...._. _ .' e//111111 I1�
MEE
leL—
I ------------
v 98'-2 TRMi$FORMER -
GENERAL NOTES.
1. MASONRY (TERRA—COTTA AND BRICK) MIN. RESTORATION MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
(NO CLEANING)
2. NO WORK ON EXISTING STORE FRONTS
PRErIN SHED
STANDING SEAM
METAL ROOFING
SNL*B CONTROL
ROOF STRUCTURE
. ,• it ; I Ij
I
j
HVAC -ROOF TOPJ UNITS
\\\
(-7-� SOUTH ELEVATION
A5.01 SCALE: 1/8' . T' -o'
-
86'-10'
- � .v , :Sri. �*= u. �; .::: . �: .ti. •I:'.
if y Y
.t .+
�F.
• S .^' ^ 1�,H.,.'f (` .c•.t+.k�rf, s,"I:�i�:�Ci�� rr.,L; r,"''��i ;'nW.��L�, .. • y't - '�+4
'. .l �ik•�i`u>i^ - L��. �'^.�:j.��1.li,yii.. .�.Tr`s' i �Y.-.�...• .f.."�:.
�I
RESTORE
EXISTING -'
St514 (TYP,)
�-1 D UIll LLIJ I Ill
IC�__.1
41
\ SIMULATED
HISTORIC MARafCE
.
/t
-
yr
V.
.I.
\ SIMULATED
HISTORIC MARafCE
ilm
T 2 2 2 So 15 TS TB
PREFINVSNED METH.
COPING
Top of Poropet Flybll .
LETTER SGNAPRE
CAST WRHBt PRECAST •_- _--'- �--� �- `. ----.- "'-i_-�-�_=' -_--�-_� � -.
CONCTtETE PANEL /j($���p �\/f/��\j������\JJ�
`��Ll•�Vf, LIJUUIim _ ___ _--_F-- _.... •_--_- --- _-_-_^- - ._--c�.�
Ek• 171'-2' - ---"--- _ -- _- -
PRECAST CONCRETE
PANEL SYSTEM =_ _-_ _— ._..�_.���.— - •d_ _:-- - ---- - -_
(SMOOTH SURFACE)
(c et ItTe
PRECAST CONCRETE ---__ -- - --- _- --- '
PANE I�ONTAL _ _ _- _rt --- .----�_ __" "__ __ '__�_—�_ •�_.= --__ �
-�_—
SYSTMRt8
'-
.
Ekv 138'-3' _--
TpF p( PCfppCi .
El+ 128.-2. - - _• - -.-._
PREFINISHED SMOOTH
SURFACE METAL
PANEL SYSTEM
SCREEN WALL
CCANOPtfSHED METAL
- EBANCRTRYSTAGE
Stye L -L. - -�
Ew 98'-2'
� T _
71
NEW LON"
1 DOCK
9 t Lerti _ _ _ _ _ - - NEW STAGE HOUSE ADDMON
ENCLOSURE
BEYOND
• GENERAL NOTES:
t. MASONRY (TERRA-COTTA AND BRICK) MIN. RESTORATION MAINTENANCE PROGRAMA
(NO CLEANING)
2. NO WORK ON EXISTING STORE FRONTS
T9 (2 23
- _ UNITSTOP
'i
{ I
24 28
1
PIANEL $iYSTEWUIRFACE METAL
E%i511NG
SCREEN WALL
om
'
BREX6 1Q ORT
i -
TR "ORMERSiR
MSE
DOOR
NEW Extf
DOOR -
NEW ALLEY
��'11ENCLOSURE
s
0
r
cyT ..
\ SIMULATED
HISTORIC MAROUEE
WEST ELEVATION
A5.00 SCALE: 1/8' - 1-0'
L N 1
flYllf\JfIIYX - ,
SPACE
PREFIN-
COPING METH,
Top of Poropet Fl&t
PREFWISHED --J _.Eley 185.-8.--�-
STANDING SEAN '
- - METAL ROOf1NC
/ R SNOW COMROL
\ ROOF STRUCTURE
PRECAST CONCRETE
PANEL SYSTEM .
(SMOOTH SURFACE)
-_-_-__- __- _ ---- __---
EXISTING CLAY ME ------ - - -- -- -- ----------'------ --
COPING TO REMAIN
PANES T CONCRETE
HORRID Q RIB
PREFINSHED SMOOTH
ACOUSTIC ---_ ---__: - _ __ SURFACE SEUL
PANELSYSTEM
META
RS— -- _- __ _ — -- - _ - SCREEN WALL.
_ _ - _ . _ _ - - - . - -ToP of Po U- -
__
FORE EXISTING _ .... __=__ PREFINISHED METAL
ESCAPE _ --_-_ - - - COPING
Top of Pom_Pet
Ek 128'-2'-
T- - -- - - - - - -' - - - - - - -- _
ACOUSTIC ----- -__ - --_ - -_ - - ( - -- - - --__ -_--_ — - -- -- -_-- -_ - -
---
XIXIXIXIX i DOORS _
NEW ACDL6C \DOM —
Slade Level _
- CONCRETE BASE El-. 98•-2'
NEW STAGE HOUSE AMMON
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT
APPLICATION -- 1998-0206-2
PROPERTY -- 520 E. Colfax
South Bend, IN
OWNER -- Historic Landmarks Foundation
DESIGNATION -- LL
RATING -- Significant S/12
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE/HISTORIC CONTEXT
This house was built at 334'North Hill Street in approximately 1880 for J.
Christopher Dille, an ex -councilman from the City of South Bend. Mr. Dille
purchased the land from the South Bend Sheriff, Samuel Cottrell. He resided
in the house until'he sold it to Henry Probst in 1901 for $3,200.00. Mr'.
Probst was born in Michigan in 1863 and he married Cynthia Singler in 1888.
Mr Probst was a salesman for Armour and Company Meat Packers of Chicago for
nearly 30 years. Upon Henry Probst death the house was passed down to Otto
Probst in 1931. Otto Probst was a statistician for the Indiana & Michigan
Electric Company. In 1987 Otto Probst passed away and the house was purchased
by the St.� Joseph Medical Center. The Medical Center developed plans for
expansion which entailed that the site of the house be leveled for a parking
lot. After several attempts to preserve the house on its original site it
became apparent that to save the building it would have to he moved. In
October of 1987, Center City Associates, a downtown merchants association
moved the house to its new location at 520 East Colfax. In December of 1992
the current.owners, The Historic Landmarks Foundation, purchased the property.
PROPOSED CHANGE
Applicant proposes to erect an identification sign to the east of the Probst
House near the sidewalk leading to the rear of the property. The sign will be
38" by 26" and will read, " Historic Landmarks Foundation of
Indiana..,. Northern Regional Office...Probst House." The sign will also have
the Historic Landmarks Foundation Logo. The sign will be supported by two
turned posts and a top rail similar.in design of the porches turned columns.
The sign will be.illuminated on both sides with below -grade lighting.
STANDARDS
The Preservation Guidelines for Local Landmarks state:
F. Signs
No neon or flashing signs will be permitted unless they are original to the
structure. Billboards and supergraphics will also be disallowed. Only one
appropriate identifying sign will be permitted per business.
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT
RECOMMENDATION
The shingle sign to be installed by this proposal was previously extended from
the front porch of the building at this site. This mounting proved problematic
with regard to wind load. The applicant therefore proposes to remount the sign
a a ground sign by suspending it from a frame constructed with a beam fixed
between two turned wood posts of approximately 6" to 8" square.
The sign is to be installed perpendicular to the street. It is to be located
as near the Colfax Avenue sidewalk as practical (2 feet ±) and centered
between HLFI's private sidewalk an the east propertyline. The sign is to be
illuminated from ground lights.
Having been aware of the difficulties related to the sign's previous location,
staff.is supportive of the new building identification strategy. The ground
sign will effectively identify the business function of the property while
having less impact on the appearance and integrity of the Landmark building.
Staff recommends approval.
DBD
2/6/98
Identification Sign
HISTORIC
LANDMARKS
FOUNDATION OF
INDIANA
Northern Regional Office
Probst House •. 520 East Colfax
Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana, Probst House
520 East Colfax Avenue, South Bend
W
V
I
6.3' ---�-
COLFAX AVE .
N
(us 20)
8.7
m/9 ,3.6'
3
'3.9
)fig' 0 ;
10 �
/�
1Glcfl.'o a ��
Cu '� 5 � %Cu W !he
'�.9'
'2 0''/ /
o fru rQ O
Identification Sign Location
.f . 3.��� . 9.94'
0.7'
ENCROACHMENT 0•58'
ENCROACHMENT
. i '—•. /� , 0.18' .
ENCROACHMENT
2 STORY
bRf K ' ,t
/� BUI D ,l
C
j;
46.9' ENCROACHMENT
-p
Cu tr / 3' ( 06'ENC OACNMENT01
z
C3 A N
Us C4 " V �o W
U ,M. -i � W
frI W
V\ J A o W
_ �.jq CD oa w
W a•' /�3. 6 Y .50 ENCROACHMENT � h (--
A / 7 / See Key Mop For Curren Owne ship
50' _
30' 30' - 30, _ Q" 27' -.-.-- 48 .
Z_ _ _ _ _ _ — _.
N 10' PRIVATE ALLEY PER T.I. POLIC7 N0. 57049
Cu
0
�t'tiC 4 t t•..• .. .. .., ..�. ..... ... .. _ - - ...-. , _. -... . _ .... L:kf ti'.f ��:': 41.:. _ . _ .. - ... _ _ ".�%_`�.�=•'_-��. �l.�Lt2+�`c`�s. :lz i�.i1•t;c:_
Mx
';�j Vtih
w•.
Yuri
a,
I•
S
yy
!4�t
v
w
f
��
).
I
O ,
f
(/ � �
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT
APPLICATION -- 1998-0209
PROPERTY -- 832'or 804 N. Lafayette
South Bend, IN
OWNER -- South Bend Community School Corp.
DESIGNATION -- LL
RATING -- Significant S/11.
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE/HISTORIC CONTEXT
This school was built in 1930 by the South Bend School Corporation. This
particular building was the third James Madison School., the first being built
in 1862 at the northwest corner of Lafayette and Madison. This was replaced in
1893 by a red brick Romanesque style building which was used as a school until
the present structure was built on North Lafayette. The second school. was then
used for offices until 1948 when it was demolished to make way for the Temple
Beth -E1. Architects; Austin and Shambleau, rdesigned the new Madison School
and the construction contract was awarded to H.G. Christman and Company. The
building was constructed to accommodate 600 students and was completed at a
cost of $275,000.00. The building was dedicated on February 22, 1930 in memory
of the old school's principal, Miss Winona Dodd. It is an excellent example of
Collegiate Gothic style as it was employed for public school design.
Subsequent additions were constructed in the late 1930s by the WPA and in the
PROPOSED CHANGE
Applicant proposes to erect a J.M Stewart Corporation designed school sign on
the west lawn of the school facing Lafayette Boulevard. The proposed sign.
will be two sided and have an overall size of 8'8" X 7'6". The sign will; have
school supply style graphics with James Madison Elementary School printed in
large letters at the top and a changeable message board located at the bottom.
STANDARDS
The Preservation Guidelines for Local Landmarks state:
F. Signs
No neon or flashing signs will be permitted unless they are .original to the
structure. Billboards and supergraphics will. also be disallowed. Only one
appropriate identifying sign will be permitted per business.
RECOMMENDATION
The Staff supports the administration of Madison Elementary School in its
apparent desire to better communicate with the. community by use of a
identification sign and message board. The Staff has concern, however for the
proliferation of signage in the general environment and specifically for the
affect of such signage on Leeper Park. Madison School is partially surrounded
by park having playing fields directly across the.street, playground beyond
the school as one approaches from the south and.open passive recreation space
extending to the river. The Lafayette Street approach to the park is very
attractive and, certainly the entry facade of the school contributes to this
ambiance.
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT
Staff has concern regarding the requested sign with regard to both its .size
and'its proposed location. The proposed sign has a message panel measuring
8'-8" wide and 4'-4" high elevated on a pedestal 3'-2" high giving an overall
height of V-6". The width represents between 1/3 and 1/4 of the lawn depth
between sidewalk and building. The height is considerably taller than a
mature adult may reach.
Madison School. lies within A -Residential zoning with C -Commercial zoning to
the East (out of sight from the Lafayette Blvd. approach) and B -Residential
zoning'to the South. A -Residential classification limits institutional signs
to 32 square feet in area or approximately 5 1/2 square feet .less than the
proposed sign. Furthermore'at such locations, height of a sign within 25 feet
of the edge of street paving must not exceed 3 feet except where a post
elevates to sign to a minimum of 10' clearance to the bottom of the sign..
Beyond these restrictions, some design considerations apply. Several
.landscaping elements presently in place will crowd.and obscure the sign at its
proposed location. The knee wall along the entry approach, along with the
flagpole,.pine tree, and crab apple trees which are not indicated in the site
plan submitted presently,provide little open space for additional non -surface
features.
Staff will seek to work with the school administration to mediate these
problems. The sign as proposed clearly does not conform the 'general
requirements of the zoning chapter of the Municipal Code. We would recommend
lowering the base of the sign and decreasing the area of the sign in
conformance with the requirements for institutional signs appropriate to the
zoning. We would further recommend relocation of the sign to the less crowded
area of the lawn to the south of the crab-apple trees. This would alleviate
the obscuring of a lowered sign panel by the knee -wall from the north and
permit better visibility from the south approach as the parking lot provides
clear open space in this direction.
DBD
2/11/98
t
A GREAT PLACE TO
STRENGTH IN DIVERSITY
R-1
( Src�? w1a l k 40 schc�l rrti�e��
J7,•Jtidin��r �1
V
f
,Soa _ •�
1
�a1o,f"c
-
aha
�v�� ��-. � Dr�v�-�S
% b� -7
ti+AS I pbvU
R . l '•� 4,�t; i* � 5't:�y`.iti` �: w Y �._ : �Z 1: j FV :: 1,�t':i1 f•� •'�.i �, �. .v�iY`L'•%•k``� "'L w :1.`s'+.t"..": 'a`�: „A;iy.::'=•wrSi sx4'�y;s, ryGz~•t �;'e dS»�l�d+"x3o"� '�ttt '�y� +
F ` 'iu��`a��t+�4�e'�'1:, . ,. �t.,, � . - 1 �, .y:L.:s.: f� �r+..vti �"ts � � i �< v t}•"' • •c "-' �r :�---Ma'tL»..,t�'�.,+'is � +�� •i ,
E�������� .ae. ..iLa.:...is.a.�..s i�:�.�1� ,: S.s +VL='�"!.`3.._..�,—�L��.C{�.i..s�.k'•..�ar.Ll�.3JL� at.a:5::2....tit.-.-�..r�._sr":ir..-'s�•!
r'
.. ,>.,.;sw.i7Y�"i''1 ,*r'",' „x >;,?x3',�e �' X,,•t•.�y n.`~?".�3+^:� 'c
ZZ
ila
- _ _—' ."•. -er,`. "� ti ^*3at � ,•� �/ J:��',"M1� .`t�'r.:m;i.7r" i i
r�' j4.d, • � ,ry 'I 'i"r' 1v �i,Jf�c�s ,��y�.4}.f.`�" �• � i
,�. .� ;, ., �'k T>• i' arc.: :'��,*+` "` Ff '�, t
/�> � ... •Yy ,�r�; ,;ori+ `ws'fi+gt'•{t".t .iy� {. � �'*+�w l -
la�7 j
". « P � 7.;.r '{ t � Y 't�,. tf} � S{ �:- ;'9x�S��a•5'�``n � -.... i .
4Ndi
�'.... r `t}j *;�A,:i"�;,t<4,.,,'.la• i.S'�:4- jj�..t. '�fci'9`',i»`��",3.' � l
•e'.4�.Rti�i31 !�:h::.K. r..',.�e4'?L��ws! �+.. l
ll_�ilr/r'/
+,
y
f
i'
.'ia�.�.'h.,•��,.w'��';'.�..t�J.�s"i."ie 1.ts .i,`a'.:'.�`-.;•c..w... k::. .. ... �'«?.' . �'.. _ _"ti'_ti - v 'i'a'`- -r i Eta S 'i _`:3 : � i-�.«,, - *"i ' - - w`,.'A s�ti'F , � ft}'>.. s'.t_' 1 � ?;:"{.
_. _�•'r' %�- .�.. L1..eYS � -.. a �..r. yds.. '.__.. - .,. _,. .. «.. ._>. 4, ii,,,..., sa :.$.mow. r.. � �•i.
II
Fac Cdr r&, o �'
'las ok
MINUTES OF' THE REGULAR MEETING .
of the
..HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Regular Monthly,Meeting County Commissionerts
7:30 -p.m. Conference Room
Monday January'19, 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: John Borkowski, Joann Sporleder, Adrian'.Fine',
John Oxian, Edward Talley, Catherine Hostetler & Janeanne Petrass.
Commission .staff present were: Rhonda Saunders Administrative Assistant and .
Aladean DL -Rose, counsel.
Also attending .the meeting were: Stan Molenda, Peg Luecke, Robert L. Montel,
Sherry L. Montel and Don Sporleder.
III..Public Hearing.
A. Certificate of.Appropriateness Applications
1) 1202 Lincolnway East.
Rhonda Saunders read "the staff report and, circulated photographs. Mr..Oxian•..
asked if the parking lot had been paved already. Mrs. Saunders stated that it'
had been paved. and that the new surface. was somewhat .visible in the -
photographs under the snow. Mr. Talley asked if- the parking lot was paved
with asphalt. Mrs. ,Saunders stated that it was paved over with asphalt and;
that . the parking lot. has also been fully lined. ., Mr. Oxian stated that since
the .paving was finished then it, can also .be assumed that .the tree marked for
removal has been removed. Mrs. Saunders concurred. Mr. Talley stated that it.
wascoincidental that the owners did not,have enough money to rehabilitate the -
carriage'house behind 12.02'.Lincolnway East, but, -they .did.. have the .money to
pave the parking lot.:.. Mr. Oxian agreed .with Mr. .Talley._- Mr. Talley also
found it funny that the applicants had been in front of the Commission several
times with. council', and yet forgot that they needed.. a Certificate -of
Appropriateness.. Mr. Oxian again agreed with Mr. Talley Is summary of the
situation. Mr.. Talley asked if the leanency of .the staff recommendation was
a result.of'some sort of agreement with the owners.- Mr. Oxian-stated that in
this situation the _owner has complied with other Commission 'requirements by
paving around the carriage house and not over it. It was asked if a building
permit was. issued _for the paving of 'the, parking lot. Mr. Oxian stated that
Mrs. Saunders should notify .the- Building Department of the situation. Mr.
Fine moved- to approve the application per the staff recommendation with the
addition that a tree -,'be planted on the site to replace the tree that was lost.
The location of the new tree would be determined at a'later_time by the staff
and the applicants. Mrs. Hostetler seconded the motion. Mrs. Sporleder and -
Mr .Talley abstained.
Mr., Oxian stated .that ,he wanted to rearrange the agenda," by placing the
Nominating Committee at, the 'end of -the-meeting'. bringing the Standards and
Maintenance Committee- to the beginning of the , meeting -'and placing
correspondence under New Business. 'Mr. Talley moved to suspend the agenda.
Mrs. Hostetler seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously..
IV. Regular Business.
A. Approval of Minutes
1. December'15, 1997:
Mr. -Oxian asked if there we re .any corrections.. Mrs. Hostetler noted that
there were some typographical and grammatical errors. Mrs. Hostetler moved to .
accept the minutes with the appropriate grammatical corrections ori pages one
and two. Mrs. Petrass seconded the motion. The motion -passed unanimously..
B. Treasurers Report
None, Mr. Weiner was not in attendance.
C. Committee Reports
1. "Standards &' Maintenance
Mr. Fine stated that he and Mr..'Duvall had met with Peg Lueke and Stan Molenda
to discuss the gate proposals for Chapin Park National- Register District. -They
discussed, in 'detail,'. the location and design's of the gates: Mr. Fine noted.
that there are six proposed locations, but, -only one of them falls within the
Commissions jurisdiction. This -site is located in both the Riverside Drive
Historic District .and the Leeper Park Local Landmark. He went on. to state
that none of. the sites. proposed .gates or pillars are identical. ' Mr. Fine
circulated a map which outlined the location of the proposed gates. He stated
that the, Committee members and, the applicants' were- able to come to an
-agreement over the main issues, concerning.height, location and -language. The
height 'of the monuments or gates. was set at six. and a half feet and the
location. of the; monument was_ placed at the top of the hill on Riverside
Drive: Mr. Fine stated that the language proposed for the plaque would have
Chapin Park Historic District. in..the largest.letters and below that_ it would
have Riverside Drive Historic" District and under that would be Leeper Park
Local Landmark.- Mr. Fine moved to approve the application- -with the above.
noted language and the height stipulation of six and a half feet including the
urn. Mrs. Petrass seconded the motion.. Mr.,Oxian asked if Peg Luecke or.Stan'
Molenda had anything they wanted'to add to, -the discussion... Peg Luecke stated
that she was.here just to answer any questions that may have come up and that
they were 'pleased with the decisions that have been made. Mr. Molenda stated:
that he had nothing to add. The motion passed unanimously.
2. Budget and.Finance
Nothing new.
3. Historic Districts
Mr'.. Fine stated that' -the' Committee met with Mr'. Duvall and Todd Ziger -last
week to discuss expanding River Bend historic District to :include five more
houses, before the houses are sold. He. noted that the meeting was. mainly a
discussion over the. logistics of the expansion and if _there would be, any
support for it. Mr. Fine also stated that they had discussed the guidelines
for the Cushing Street District _before Mr. 'Duvall. was ,called away.. Mrs.
Hostetler stated that the Districts Committee intends, to' meet with the River
Bend Liaison Committee to discuss the two methods by which the houses could be
added to the District She noted that they could be added by either expanding
the boundaries of the District or. by annexing, the properties in .question into:
the District.. Mr. Talley asked..if there—was a .consensus taken ofowners
opinions concerning this expansion. Mrs. Hostetler stated. -that this'had not .
been done as of . yet.. . Mr*. Fine stated that the Committee .wants to have this
project completed quickly,do to the fact .that one'of the houses. is already up
for sale. He further- stated that the easiest way to accomplish their goal
would' be to amend -the existing ordinance to include the new properties, this
2
way the District could maintain their existing standards. There was some
discussion, over which houses were - to be added to- the District., Mrs. DeRose
asked how many. different owners are involved. Mrs. Hostetler stated that
there are five owners. Mrs. DeRose asked if—the Committee had discussed this
proposition with the.owners. '.Mrs. Hostetler stated that'the Committee had not.
yet approached the owners. Mr. Talley stated that he thought expanding the
boundaries was. a_ good idea. . Mr.' Oxian stated that 'if the boundaries. were
expanded it .would leave the door open to the possibility of also making the
boundaries smaller. Mr. Fine and.Mrs. Hostetler stated that the Committee' had
discussed this matter. -Mr. Oxian -stated, that making it -a separate District
would be a -safer route, to' take and. -in time possibly attach the Districts "
together. There was some discussion over the pros and cons of each option.
Mrs. Hostetler stated that if the Commission members wanted to discuss these
options at length than a Committee meeting should be called and_all those with
questions should attend.. Mr. Oxian stated that if a Committee meeting is set.
up and, all the members come then'it would become a,regular open meeting. -He
• further stated that everyone should think about the options' and that the
Committee should discuss the options 'further, putting together the pros and
cons of each option and.then make a recommendation to the Commission. .
There was more discussion,over which houses were to be added.
Mrs. Hostetler stated the Liaison Committee Handbooks were pending approval
upon Mrs. DeRose`s approval. Mrs. DeRose stated that. she had phoned .the
changes she felt should be made to Mr. Duvall before Christmas. There was
some discussion over if these changes were made or not.
4. Historic Landmarks
Mr. Oxian stated that Madison School would be in front. of the Council. on
January '26, 1998. He, also noted that 513 Harrison received its Landmark.
status and that 1631 Lincolnway West might be on the January 26 agenda. Mr.
Oxian- stated that the. proposed landmark -at 214 Jefferson Street has been.
introduced. Mr. -Talley asked`if -Mr. Oxian thought Madison School would go
through. Mr. Oxian stated 'that it looked like it should sail. through quite
easily as should 1631.Lincolnway West.. Mr. Oxian stated that the'Natatorium
was ' on hold and that 'there would be a meeting .held- to discuss it with in the - .
next two months. He also noted that 513 Harrison would be changing ownership_
with in -the next few weeks. `
5. Legal
Mr. Oxian asked what had happened to the. ordinance, changing Certificate of
�Appropriateness,time from 45 days to 60 days.- Mrs. DeRose stated that she had:
drafted Iit and given it to Mr. Duvall. Mr. Oxian asked Mrs. Saunders if the
ordinance has been sent down. Mrs. Saunders stated that it was on Area Plans
agenda for their meeting.on January 20.
Mrs. DeRose stated that in. regards to the Good Neighbors Program that the ,
staff has provided .the Board of Public' Works with `a _list of all Historic
Properties. under the Commissions jurisdiction. She also.stated that the Board
of Public' Works has' sent. .out a letter that Mrs. `DeRose drafted to all
concerned owners notifying.them of their obligation to obtain a Certificate of
Appropiriateness.'. Mr. Oxian noted.- -that. he had received. the letter. Mrs—
DeRose
rs-DeRose stated that -in the future the application form -for the Good Neighbors,
.Program will have'a notice at the.bottom stating that any owner inlan Historic
District or Landmark. has to contact the .Historic Preservation Commission
office:
D. Staff. Reports
3
1. Certificate of Appropriateness Staff Approvals,
There were'no staff approvals.
2. DHPA Grant status.
Mr—Fine stated that the decisions on,the grants will. be made January 28.
.4. St. Joseph River Initiative
Mr..'Oxian asked if Mr. Duvall had attendedthe meeting in Michigan City. Mrs
Saunders stated that. he had attended.
5. East Bank Heritage Program
Mr., Oxian-,asked if Mr. Fine knew anything about the program.. Mr. Fine stated
that there was a two day session. held by five -tourism experts last week for
all concerned parties.
.6. -St. Casimer Centennial Celebration
Mr. Oxian asked if Mr. Talley was able.to attend the celebration. Mr. Talley
` stated that he was unable to make it.
V. Old Business•
Nothing to report.
VI. New Business
A. Montel 'Letter
Mrs. DeRose.outlined the letter sent to the Commission by Mr: 'Montel, in which
it stated. that Mr.: Montel purchased the house at 6500 Bremen Road , at a time
when . it had under gone,'a lot of .*changes by the hand of, the previous owner. •.
She further noted that Mr. Montel claims-.that.when he purchased the property
that he had no knowledge of the property being a Landmark. , Mrs. DeRose' also
noted that the "property was Landmarked in 1977, at which time a plaque was
affixed to the building., She also stated that Mr: Montel seemed to be.asking
that the Commission revisit the issue of Landmark certification by having the
Landmarks ''Committee make an on sight, inspection to determine whether the
Landmark designation should be changed or not. Mr. Montel statedthat they
have photographs of the.original house and that the structure of the house has
remained the same however. the -porch has been significantly altered and, the
previous, owner had put in new windows.. I He further reiterated that they knew
nothing of it'being a'Landmark until some one turned them in and they received
and stop work notice. Mr. Montel also stated that he has received many
building, permits,•for various work, done in the past -with no mention of a need
for a Certificate of Appropriateness. Mrs. DeRose•stated that the real' issue
is whether the Commission should reevaluate the landmark status. If the
Commission chooses.not'to revoke the landmark•status then the house will still
be under the jurisdiction of the Historic Preservation Commission and Mr.
Montel will need their permission to continue. Mr.-Montel asked about 'the
work that was already done.' Mr. Oxian stated that the pole barn that was put
up was reported to the�Building Department by himself. He also noted that the -
Building Department has a list of every Local Landmark and all Historic
District Properties, however, not all the individuals who work in the Building
Department look at the lists. Mr. Oxian stated that because the pole.barn was
already completed there was nothing that. could be done about it. He went on
to note that.the.Commission did.not require -a Certificate of Appropriateness
for the pole barn.because ,it was not really harming anything.. There`was some
discussion over the plaque that was in',front'of the house and the acreage..that-
was landmarked with the house. Mrs. DeRose reiterated that if this problem is
not solved then the cease and desist order on Mr. Montel's property will
remain in affect until it is resolved or Mr. Montel applies for a Certificate
of Appropriateness and is approved,by the Commission. Mr. Montel stated that'
the Committee was welcome to come out and inspect the house. Mr. Oxian placed
the property into the Landmarks Committee and stated that the Committee_ would
inspect the .house, talk further with the owner, Mr. Montel, ,and then make a
recommendation to the Commission. Mr. Oxian also stated that the Landmark
Guidelines are not that strict and 'that some of the things Mr. Montel -wants
to do to his.house,are with in the guidelines. Mrs. De'Rose-also stated that
some of the things Mr. Montel is attempting to.do are with in the guidelines:
Mr. Oxian stated that Mr: Montel's house-was a "B" Standard in the Guidelines;
which ,'are much more lenient then "A".'Standards. .,Mr. Talley, asked if Mr:.."
Montel understood what was ha
- ppening. ,Mr. Montel stated that he understood..
Mr. Talley stated to Mr. Montel that in his case it might .•be more important
for,the Commission-to allow Mr. Montel to complete the work he already started
so the house can maintain,its- Landmark status. Mr. Oxian stated that the
Committee would be in touch'with Mr. Montel to set up a time to, visit the
property.. Mrs. Sporleder asked how much of the house- is sided. Mr. Montel
stated that a section of the already existing siding wascomingoff and. -that
was what ,he was repairing.' Mrs. Sporleder asked if the, house is secure
against the weather as it'stands.- Mr.-Montel stated that it was secured'.
B. Nominating Committee
Mr. Borkowski stated. that the Committee nominated John Okian for President,
Catherine Hostetler for Vice President, Edward Talley for Secretary and Jerry
Weiner for Treasurer. John Borkowski moved to accept the nominations.. Adrian
Fine,seconded the motion.. The motion passed unanimously.
VII Hearing Visitors
Mr.. Sporledernoted that the St. Joseph Heritage Rivera application was
forwarded among many,other application for-other rivers.. He also stated that
the meeting held in Michigan City on 'December' 30,. 1997 was attended by Mr.
Duvall; Michiana Watershed and Judy Creek Task Force.. The meeting was held to
discuss the .complaint lodged against-the permit given to the developers of
Blake Gardens. Mr.-Sporleder noted that the Judge'set,the time table in place
by giving the developer until-:the- end of January to •file his motion on
Standing'. The Judge set February as the time for'the groups who.have brought
forth the '.appeal to respond to the motion, :then in April the- Judge will make
the final decision. Mr. Sporleder stated that -it was also arranged that a
new, . more convenient, depository for the- cases material-be-created in MACOGr.
Mr. Sporleder noted that there has still been 'no'. action taken in regards to
the developers application by the Army Corp of Engineers.
Mr. Oxian-. asked what happened during the meeting concerning .the. Jefferson,-
Street Bridge. _Mr. Fine stated that.Historic Landmarks Foundation had given a
grant- to. Center. City Associates to allow them. to hire Abba Lichtenstein_, a'.'
consultant out of New. Jersey. Mr. Lichtenstein was"hired to work withs the
City Engineers -to reassess the bridges structural condition. There was some
• discussion over old reports stating that the bridge was structural unsound.
VIII.-Announcements and Miscellaneous Matters
None
IX. Adjournment
Mrs.•Hostetler-moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:40pm. Mr'. -Borkowski -seconded
the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
•ti .
5
Staff Approved Certificates of
Appropriateness
1998-0120 228 S. Sunnyside
Good Neighbor project, replacement of sidewalks and curbs
1998-0119 1533 Lincolnway West
Good Neighbors project, sidewalk replacement
1998-0205 Wayne STreet Island
Removal of three trees, a mulberry, spruce and crabapple
and replacement of the trees.
1998-0206 810 Axch
Removal of maple tree from front yard and replace it with
an ornamental tree when rootsddeteriorate enough.
. . ..... . . . . HIM
Halsor
914111
J �, j < t \ _ _— ate:\.\tisk �1�1� _
jp
I-V #,I
E]E]
... .... . ...
4L
'. r — -----
EDO=,11 ps
—
7-7
ft
.. .... ..... .. ...110]
INDIANA,HISTORIC SITES
AND STRUCTURES INVENTORY UPDATE
February 11, 1998
address
rating
inventory #
.comments
911 Golden Av.
S/11
`.141-598-45298.
up from C/9.
214 W. Jefferson Blvd.
S/11
141-598-56111.5
up form C/10-
630 Portage Av.
NC-
141-598-25209
correct'from house
to commercial bldg.,
_
Chapin Park NRHD
.
728 Portage Av.
C/9
141-598-25213
correct from commer-
cial. to apartment,
Chapin Park NRHD.
736 Portage Av..
C/9
141-598-25214
correct from commer-
cial to apartment,'
Chapin Park NRHD
. DEMOLITIONS
114 N. Frances Street
C/9
141-597-35866
E. Washington PNRD
810 .E. -Huey St.
C/9
141-598-24198
1014 N. Johnson. St.
C/9
141=598-24122
743 N. Leland Av.
NC'
141-598-25251
Chapin Park NRHD
221 N: Michigan St.
S/11-
141-598-56188
South Bend MRA/NR
1520 W..Poland
C/9
141-598-55287
St: Casimir.NRHD
521 N- Scott St..
S/11
141-598-45705
502 S. St. Joseph St.
S/11.-141-597-56258
S. St. Joseph PLHD,
301 S. Walnut,St.
C/9
141-598-55383 ,-
Mr. Thomas Selsor
Berkeley Corporation
12657 S.R. #23
Granger, Indiana 46530
January 23, 1998
Dear Mr. Selsor,
This letter is to confirm receipt of your correspondence of January 20, 1.998
regarding the property located at 12670 S.R. 23 in St. Joseph County. Properly
speaking, your request is not for a certificate of appropriateness and we are
therefore returning your application fee which you will find enclosed. The
text of the application will be accepted as a letter requesting amendment of
the property description of the Local Landmark with which.this property is
associated. Such an amendment follows the same procedures as those set forth
for designation of a Landmark as set forth in the Historic Preservation Plan
of South Bend & St. Joseph County..
Your correspondence will be reported to the Historic Preservation Commission
at its regularly scheduled monthly meeting which is to be held at 7:30 p.m. on
the evening of February 17. The meeting which is open to the public is held in
the County Commissioner's Conference Room, located on the seventh floor of the
County -City Building, 227 West Jefferson in downtown South Bend.
Although the letter will be reported at this time as new business, no Public
Hearing has been scheduled. At this -time the presiding officer of the
commission meeting may dispose of the matter, most probably by referring it to
a committee of the commission for further investigation. The public has an
opportunity to address the commission provided at the end of the agenda.
However, any discussion by the commission of the matter would.be at the
pleasure of the Chair of the meeting.
Yours truly,
David B. Duvall
Director
Historic Preservation
of South Bend and St.
cc: John Oxian - President, HPC
Aladean DeRose - counsel to the HPC
Commission
Joseph County
The following is a chronology of the relationship between the
Historic Preservation Commission and Thomas A. Selsor, owner
of the Local Historic Landmark properties at 12594-12670 State
Road 23, Harris Township, Granger, IN.
January 6, 1987
The owner applied for a Certificate of Appropriateness (C of A)
as follows: 1. house to be used as gift shop with no interior
changes; 2. garage to be finished as entry to house with an
addition as shown in drawings; 3. all outbuildings may be removed
except smokehouse which is to be restored as a display; large barn
(exterior modified for light and wide entry) stalls and partition
walls to be removed, floors refinished, lighting added to highlight
structure, beams and joints; 4.remove large tree blocking driveway;
5. signage to be submitted.
January 6, 1987
The HPC staff recommended the approval of the tentative site plan
with the exception of the removal of the largest of the three trees.
The staff recommended the approval of the facade design of the new
retail structure east of the large barn. The staff asked for new
drawings of the garage opening. The staff recommended tentative
approval of the plans for the barn.
January 21, 1987
The staff report citing Renovations and Additions to Local Landmarks
and Demolition of Local Landmarks stated the following:
1. Staff recommended the approval of the new retail building and the
addition to the barn pending review of the materials.
2. The barn and garage alterations were to be reviewed for materials
and specifications.
3. Staff recommended approval of the demolition of the small barn, shed
and chicken coop.
4. Staff recommended removal of the largest tree only if no other site
plan was feasible.
February 2, 1987
Commissioner Sporleder offered " no resistance" to Mr. Selsor's request
for a zoning variance to alter the setback to increase size of parking
lot.
February 11, 1987
Contents of an HPC staff report on Mr. Selsor's revisions.
1. Staff recommended the approval of the alterations to the garage
except " that the panel on the lintel above the windows be left plain."
2. The landscaping was approved.
3. Staff recommended against the removal of the tree.
March 17, 1987
letter from Mr. Selsor to HPC in which he agrees to retain largest
of three trees just NW of barn. Mr. Selsor also states, " The large
barn will not be altered."
August 17, 1987
The owner applied for a C of A as follows: install hanging sign
18"X24" with swags and broken pedimented details, supported by
VXV in off set "T" post and lintel with gingerbread type detail.
August 17, 1987
HPC staff report recommends approval of sign but disallows support
post.
August 19, 1994
A letter from the HPC to Mr. Selsor expresses chagrin over the lack
of promised uniform signage and offers an explanation for the denial
of support post.
August 26, 1987
A letter from Mr. Selsor to the HPC states that the Hathaway House
signage was erected without his permission or HPC approval.
September 2, 1987
A letter from Commissioner Sporleder to Mr. Selsor explaining the process
for the reduction in area of a Landmark property.
October 2, 1987
A letter from the HPC to Mr. Selsor asking for an infromational update
on the signage at Hathaway House.
December 2, 1987
A letter from Mr. Selsor to Mr. Don Fozo stating that Mr. Selsor had
requested that the Hathaway House owner contact the Building Department
concerning signage.
January 25, 1988
Mr. Selsor applies for a C of A to reduce the size of his landmarked
property. HPC staff recommends approval of the application. HPC tabled
the matter.
March 4, 1988
A letter from Mr. Selsor to the HPC citing issues for the upcoming HPC
meeting. 1. Landmark reduction; 2. illegal signage; 3. approval of retail
building design; 4. re -approval of barn design, originally approved in 1987.
March 14, 1988
A letter from Mr. Selsor to the Indiana Department of Highways,
protesting a variety of requests made,by the Department regarding
Mr. Selsor's property.
March 16, 1988
HPC staff report citing Additions to Landmarks Standards recommended
1. that the siding replacement be vertical
2. the brick veneer be deleted from the plan
3. the 2nd floor roof line be changed
May 16, 1988
The HPC voted to approve the reduction`in size of Mr. Selsor's Landmark
property.
February 20, 1989
The owner applied for a C of A as follows: 1. add a 1 story addition to
the SE corner*of the house. 2. Remove a split rail fence and replace with
picket fence; replace entry lantern; landscape change; tree removal; signage.
The HPC staff report recommended the approval of all of these items.
February 21, 1992
The owner applied for a C of A as follows: 1. to rehabilitate existing
wood siding, replace existing wood siding (c.1919) in-kind; 2. build
doors to match 1875 elevation, doors fixed in place; 3. replace two
existing medallions with round lights; 4. replace existing side openings
with same or similar windows; 5. add windows and build air lock at rear
elevation; 6. pave rear for parking; each of these proposals applied to
the large barn.
February 21, 1992
HPC staff report citing Landmark Standards Group B, Treatment, Renovations
and Additions to Landmarks, Construction and Style/Materials recommeded
complete approval of the proposal.
July 28, 1993
Mr. Selsor's lapsed C of A dated February 21, 1992 was re -approved by
Commissioner Oxian.
February 28, 1994
Mr. Selsor applies for a C of A to build a small storage building on
an unregulated parcel of land. The land in question had been previously
removed from Landmark status. The HPC informs Mr. Selsor of this fact
and offers to return his application fee.
APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OFISOUTH BEND AND ST. JOSEPH,COUNTY
Date: 1/20/98
Address of. 12670 S.R. #23
I Property Gran4er. IN 46530
Designation:
Owner's Name: Berkeley Corporation
Mailing Address
of Owner
Telephone:
12657 S.R. #23
Gran4Pr. TN 46530
277-5765
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:. Request to remove this nroperty_from the historir designation.
It consists of a modern retail building (built about 1985) between two histnrir buildinc,c__
Yesterdav's Restaurant (Goff House) & Calico Garden (Goff Rarn)_ WP ask this hX_a1 cP
�$hpfrnnt Plevatinn of the original property no lnnger has any hictnrir cignifiranro
land these are now separate prnnertiPs with senarato nwnarc
[] Continuation Sheet [] Addendum to Certificate.
The following information as applicable to the particular situation and the
'standards designated shall also be submitted as part of this application:
I
y_ Structural drawings and specifications, or site plan, floor
plans, elevations, cross section plans, renderings, diagrams, or
other such plans.
Landscaping plans.
Contractor specifications.
Photographs.
Where the proposed project includes a sign, a scale drawing showing
the location of the sign on the structure or property, the type of
lettering, and the method of illumination.
Other such information as the Historic Preservation Commission may
require under the provisions of!the Zoning Ordinance of the City of
South Bend or the St. Joseph County Zoning Ordinance, as applicable.
The filing of this application shall be accompanied by a fee of three
dollars ($3.00), payable to the Historic Preservation Commission to cover
the costs incurre in reviewi nd processing this application. []
Thomas Selsor for Berkeley Corporation
Applicant's signature Applicant's Printed Name
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
COMPLETED APPLICATION RECEIVED (date): CASE #:
REVIEW AND DECISION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
REVIEW: [] In-kind Replacement
Comments:
[] Continuation Sheet
DECISION: [] Approved [] Denied
Comments:
[] Appropriate
[] Addendum
[] Partial Approval
[] Inappropriate
Date:
Historic Preservation Commission
Notice to Applicant: Approval of your application and issuance of a
Certificate of Appropriateness in no way signifies compliance with health,
safety or general building/zoning standards. Neither does it release or
relieve you from compliance with all codes and regulations of the City of
South Bend, St. Joseph County, or the State of Indiana. The commission ex-
-essly disclaims any liability resulting from safety or health defects in
--iy structure for which a Certificate of Appropriateness has been issued.
Approval of your application expires six months from the DECISION date.
For projects not substantially completed, contact HPC for renewals.
irar P
10 sq-
,VOI//7 &17e 5;eCII, 0,17 A e a/ 1he R1,W al S.R. ?S
(9,,i ,9 DaiPme Awn 0i70r &lh)
?3400'-
F7 30' 30* -,10,'WeSS Es
ri
ye-
L--, 1
I Abs/ I
L7
7 �t.
Area -
SVW�O
t --J
.._......._ .___ __ ......_..._._ __ __.._ y
Meal
Al 0711"Mvw
zlor
tn
I- _j
Apholl Am-