HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 1998AGENDA OR THE'-SPECIAL'MEETING
- of the. - HISTORIC -PRESERVATION COMMISSION
,Special meeting County Commissioner's
7.:30 p.m. Conference_ Room
Monday,_March 2', 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. Hearing of Visitors
V. Announcements & Miscellaneous Matters
VI 'Adjournment t
AGENDA OF THE REGULAR MEETING
of the
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Regular monthly meeting County Commissioner's
_ 7:30"p.m. Conference Room
Tuesday, March -17, 1998 7th Floor County: City.Bldg.
I. Call to Order
II. Roll Call
-_ - - - III._Public -Hearin -- - -- - - -- - -- - - A. Certificate of Appropriateness Applications `
'1) 112 S. Lafayette 2nd County Courthouse LL; replacement of -
roofing and rehabilitation of cupola.
'2) 60500 Breman Highway - Crofoot House LL; installation of vinyl
siding.
3) 515 Riverside Drive.~ RB-LHD; Siding replacement, landscaping,
rearyardfence. .
4) 1127 East Wayne Street -'EW-LHD; window replacement, masonry
re -pointing.
5) 621 Lincolnway East -.EP-LHD; demolition of existing garage -
construction of new two -bay garage.
6) 1321 East Wayne Street - EW-LHD; rear yard privacy fence.
7).1308 East Wayne Street - EW-LHD; small addition and roof
alteration:
IV_. Regular Business
A. Approval of Minutes
1'. January.19;.1998 -
2. February 17, 1998
3. March 5, 1998
B. Treasurer's,Report '
C. Correspondence
D. Committee Reports ,
1. Nominating Committee
2. Budget &.Finance
3.'Historic Districts
4. Historic Landmarks _
a.-60500 Breman Highway (SR 331) - Crofoot House LL
b. '12670'S.R.23 - Goff Farm LL -
5. Standards & Maintenance
6. Legal
E. Staff Reports
-1.'C of.A Staff Approvals_,.(see attachment)
2. --Legal
3. DHPA Grant status
a: 1997=98.
1. Leeper-Park Plan ;
2. District Guidelines -• '-
' 4. Proposed Local Historic•Districts
a. South St. Joseph St
b. Cushing St.,
c. North -St. Joseph -St,.
5..Liaison committee elections
V. Old Business.
VI. New Business
A. Request for amendment of designated Landmark - 166401 Walnut Rd
VII. Hearing,of Visitors
VIII. Announcements & Miscellaneous Matters -
IX.. Adjournment
S1
IS
"0 s
1
ze
,: �ja A 2-1
��x�.� s
I
ast
-9
:i.����r3 v'rsavr'd.�. ..... __...-. _ _ _. l✓.V.'.r1�r_'..ti��:.1_fiiuisri+a':�`�rtv...�......... ...: ' ' �: x: �.:_...i.-_arv.a a..a.a. n.....�..._�r_.`.
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT
APPLICATION -- 1998-0213
PROPERTY -- 112.South Lafayette -
South Bend, IN
OWNER -- St. Joseph County
DESIGNATION -- LL
RATING -- Outstanding 0/13
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE/HISTORIC CONTEXT
The second County Courthouse was constructed in 1855 on the.southeast corner
of'Washington and Main Streets to replace an earlier courthouse which was
built in 1833 and. demolished in 1853. .In_ 1853 the County commissioned Chicago
architect, John Mills Van Osdel, to design.the new courthouse'. Mr. Van Osdel
has been accredited as being Chicago's first professional architect. He
designed the (original) Palmer House Hotel, the McCarthy Building and the
Delaware Building, the latter two and the Courthouse are the only remaining
examples of his work. The final design that Mr. Van Osdel came up with for the
new courthouse was a Greek Revival style with the impression of a Greek Temple
front. The building was significantly altered by remodeling during the 1870s.
The courthouse was moved to its present location on Lafayette in 1896 to allow
for the construction of the Third County Courthouse. Ten years after it was
moved and the new courthouse was built the building became the head quarters
for the Northern Indiana Historical Society and remained as such until 1995.
Currently the structure is vacant, awaiting renovations so it can once again
be used as a functioning courthouse.
PROPOSED CHANGE
Applicant proposes to perform structural roof repairs, replace the existing
built-up roof with a metal folded -seam roofing to more accurately resemble the
original roof and to rehabilitate the cupola, per the documentation submitted.
STANDARDS .
The Preservation Guidelines for Local Landmarks state:
C. Renovations and Additions
1. Structure
Necessary structural -improvements, where safety demands should be accomplished
in such a way as to cause minimal visual change to the original style and
construction.
2. Construction and Style
All work should be done in the architectural style and in a technique
compatible with that of the original structure. Change that alters, removes,
or covers existing significant stylistic detail shall not be permitted.A
change which adds detail of another style will not 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.
a. wood - all wood trim should conform with existing trim in shape and 'size.
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT
b. siding materials - the Commission discourages the covering or alteration of
original materials with additional siding. Structures already sided with
incompatible materials should be returned to a siding similar to the original
when renovation is considered.
Building Site and Landscaping
2. Recommended
New site work.should be based upon actual knowledge of the past appearance of
the property found in photographs, drawings, and newspapers. . ,
RECOMMENDATION
The applicant proposes to rehabilitate roof features as part of the
comprehensive rehabilitation of this building for renewed public use. The
building is arguably the most significant extant structure in the city and
county being one of the 3 extant structures designed by John Mills Van Osdel,
considered to be the -first professional architect to practice in Chicago. It
is further one of the few remaining Greek Revival courthouses in the state.
Due to the high survey rating and the above stated significance, greatest
concern and the highest standards should be applied in activities related to
the maintenance of building.
The proposed repairs to the structure require no removal. of original material
and include options for reinforcement by adding incidental steel to existing
members. Though the final solution has not yet been determined, Staff
recommends approval of this operation so long as it does not deviate from
proposed alternatives._
Replacement of built-up roofing with folded -seam roofing*of-terne-coated
copper or stainless steel is consistent with the probable original
construction. The only other probable material for the original roof would
have been wood shingle which would have been considered inferior at the time
of construction and certainly would not be considered safe today. Staff
recommends approval of this roofing replacement.
Finally, proposed rehabilitation of cupola features includes removal of
exitsing metal cladding and its replacement; replacement of deteriorated wood
mouldings, etc.; installation of replacement and additional metal cladding;
repair of clock features and interior cleaning.
The Landmark standards allow installation of substitute materials but require
replacement of original materials by type and discourage cladding except in
exceptional cases. The principal is.sues here weigh the relative merits of
retaining original historical material when it is deteriorated and the
retention of character and appearance when alterations are required. Thus it -
may be argued that some loss of character may be justified in the interest of
avoiding replacement of original material, (i.e. retaining deteriorated
historical material under cladding versus replacement of detei-iorated
historical material with new matching materials). There may also be some issue
of hardship raised with regard to long term maintenance viability. The
significant issue of this application is with regard to the installation of
additional. cladding' which is proposed.
It is the judgment of the Staff 'that specifically the texture of the
horizontal board siding which is discernible from the ground is'a character
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT
giving feature which would be lost by general cladding of the vertical wall
surfaces. Deletion of this component may render cladding of mouldings less
feasible. The specifications indicate intention to remove and replace rotted
moulding material previous to the cladding operation. Therefore, the cladding
does not appear to be for the purpose of retaining_maximum original_ fabric.- _-
- - Given these considerations, Staff believes that cladding should be limited to
replacement of existing claddings if they are required. It would appear from
the Design Development Report filed with the application that these claddings
may require only spot repair in which case this material should probably be
retained as well. If removal of this material is performed, it may be found
that additional detail articulation should be replicated at these locations.
Staff therefore recommends that the cladding operations at the cupola be so
limited and that existing wood features be stabilized and repaired or replaced
with like material.
The painting and -interior cleaning do not require review by the commission but
Staff would comment since painting may be an issue with regard to the desire
to substantially.clad the structure. The project manual indicates that all
surfaces shall be stripped -prior to repainting. This is probably to be
recommended as build-up, especially of paints of differing composition, may
contribute to paint failure. It is therefore desirable in this case toremove
all existing paint and apply entirely new paint system known to be effective.
Care should be taken to document the paint being removed to determine the
color of.the original and subsequent paints to determine a restoration color
scheme.
Since the retention of some original materials to be exposed and painted is
proposed, painting will need to be engaged at regular intervals, even should
the cladding be applied. In this case, it seems of little consequence how much
painting is to be performed as it will. not affect.the need for scaffolding
etc. on those occasions. However this.need may -be expedited by.the starting
anew with a modern paint system applied to bare wood. Staff would further
caution regarding the possible removal of items of -historical interest such as
workmen's graffiti during the cleaning operations inside.
As a final note regarding the regulatory requirements of this project:
Because of the various funding assistance provided by the'state and federal
government, covenants on the building will require that the comprehensive
rehabilitation program will need to be review by the staff architect of the IN
Div. of Historic Preservation & Archaeology. I have therefore consulted with
that office in preparation of this Staff Report. Given the present level of
documentation, Staff believes this report to .be consistent with the criteria
which would be applied by that office.
DBD
3/11/98
KEN HERCEG & ASSOCIATES, INC DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS A LAND SURVEYORS 1855 COURTHOUSE
211 W. WASHINGTON ST, SUITE 2100, SOUTH BEND, INDIANA 46601
SOUTH BEND, INDIANA
(219) 288-4580
(:\9712\103\FG0lR00 Tue Feb 3 13:32:42 1998
gr1l"t-
— It
I
KEN HERCEG & ASSOCIATES, INC. DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS i LAND SURVEYORS 1855 COURTHOUSE
211 W. WASHINGTON ST, SUITE 2100, SOUTH BEND, INDIANA 46601
(219) 288-4580 SOUTH BEND, INDIANA
K:\9712\103\FGOIROO Tue Feb 3 13:32:42 1998
%4009 filar
MfEr,& -. mr vly--ia
KEN HERCEG & ASSOCIATES, INC. DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS A LAND SURVEYORS 1855 COURTHOUSE
211 W. WASHINGTON ST., MITE 2100, SOUTH BEND, INDIANA 46601 SOUTH BEND, INDIANA
(219) 288-4580
K:\9712\t03\FG0iR00 Tue Feb 3 13:32:42 1998
�, .- � "r �• - kap
any*��+' l��r� � .°�f� r�'+'�""'� - t � •. -
"%�;t��~t,"��� L ��1y✓✓.r+"� i_.;� �f..a� 7 M'3w.�,��•� � -
� �h��F,,so,,'rj�t.,,� ��it'"�p�����'�`�_ x.. w't T4A` �„ `•1"a�� �7 t x4A N
+�+kk1�� r11r�M
„' TT
1
mit � :- � t' `� = •
1 � �'f�,�,�f�� {I�IN���,,,",,tti�f'.."��i^_�� !i Mv�.r➢���.X+ �.Y i t 4:.s
y r.'�:`!F•..• a�kiiZ�'*t13�.4.44�►r 1 c _ - .b��'�:._ '&+i�.r':� „ _ .-'� �,... .
1
I „
1
( ti
N
V
I h
i= `F
1
I x x
M
1
i
x I
SECTION THRU THE CUPOLA
N
h
...........
OREM
EXISTINGWETAL CLADDING
0 0
MW{�
d
PROPOSED METAL MAnniNr.
LEGEND•
® METAL RAmm
CUPOLA ELEVATIONS & SECTION
W
t!�
O
x
O
Oma
a
moo?
co
U
r
W
lu
I
W2
U)
O
ch
V/
V/
DRAWN
O.E.B.
CHECKED
Oda
DATE
2-9-98
SCALE
1/4=1=0'
FILE NO.
floc *f
" NO.
9717-10
SHEET
6
DE _
SHEETS
�— I
Ll
En
En
En
MO
O
O
E—
O
m
O_
N
19
9-0 1/2'
I .
s;'-2'
T}? -M TRUSS DETA2
SCALE 1/+-1 --0'
111'+'6 J/4•
1/2'x6 3/4'
I 10-1' 1 9=0 1/2
sr -2'
t
M001RE0_ TRUSS DETAIL
SCALE 114'--1'-0*
112'.x6 3/4'
ru—r s !f V"6 314
A 1
_---.-_ _-_.__..i.--_---.- � - -..--.
�5-1 1/6' 518 mrnxwRf RECESS I
6 -PCS
I
:I I
I
-,
--------_ _— __ a =mv ---- 5 1 'Ifll
A
Q I,I ri A4 (i 1►
r
.i
a
8
1-2 314x9 114'
1/6"x9
t � v
9 1/216 314'
,SECTION A -A + ♦ R '��
SCALE 114=1•-0' ����1♦�1' ���
�4
STRUCTURE SECTION
REVISIONS DATE
Z�a
W
i
M
0
zo
uj -
oc
W
0T
i
Q I¢
z
0
� U -
W m
1
0
U III �
Mrw�•
"DRAWN L.R.O.
CHECKED Dua
DATE 24-96
SCALE 114'-1-0'
FILE NO. 0101R0Qdwg
d09 NO. 9712-103
SHEET
5
OF - SHEETS
I(: \9712\i63�RP0
Sat Feb 7-09: 38:19-098
61=B•
I- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
I i
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I • I
I
I I
I
I � I
I I I I
I I ► I
I ; I
I I I
I I I
I I I I
I
I I I I
Y I I I
j 1 i I
I I �
II I I I
1► �I I � I
--------------------------------------J
I
I
� " 0 "
o SJC — 1855 COURTHOUSE
__
N- 1N , I, ST. JOSEPH COUNTY >� >mcm & Amommm• iNG
u+ N ^+ PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS 1 LAND SURVEYORS
Ani rru Fumn imnIANA F- CM PROH
,m
y
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT
.APPLICATION -- 1998-0217
PROPERTY -- 60500 Breman Highway (SR331)
Mishawaka, IN
OWNER -- Robert Montel
DESIGNATION -- LL
RATING -- Outstanding 0/13
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE/HISTORIC CONTEXT
Vernon Crofoot and his family arrived in St. Joseph County in 1832 and
immediately went to work creating their legacy. Twenty two years later in
1854 Vernon Crofoot's son, Henry, returned home from his youthful travels to
marry Nancy.Pruner and settle down. A year later Henry.purchased 80 acres of
land from his father's farm in Penn -Township. By 1876 Henry Crofoot's farm
was successful enough to allow him to build a large irregular Itali.anate home
and barn on the site. Over time the Crofoot farm would eventually extend to
over'288 acres and the Crofoot family would extend to eleven children. In
1892 Willard Crofoot, one of the eleven children, purchased 40 acres from his
father Henry Crofoot's farm.* This land contained farm land and a dwelling.
In i901 Willard Crofoot demolished the existing structure and constructed a
Queen Anne style house. Willard and his wife, Minnie, resided there until
their deaths in .1952 and 1956. Upon their deaths the house was passed on to
their.son, Alton B. Crofoot. Alton Crofoot was the man responsible for having
the house landmarked in'1976.* The current owner, Robert Montel, purchased the
property on March 31, 1,992.
The house is a QueenAnne farmhouse. -Its front section is two stories
articulated by slight variation of siding dimension and a flared skirting at
the division line between stories. The roof is pyramidal'with a shingle gabled
dormer on each of the North south and west elevations. The rear section is a
simpler story and a half gabled wing which appears to be of the same period
-of_ construction.
PROPOSED CHANGE
Applicant proposes to install vinyl siding to parts of the house that are not
already sided, because, of wood rot and missing pieces of wood siding. The
owner further stated that siding the rest of the'house would simply complete a
project that the previous owner had already begun.
STANDARDS
The Preservation'Guidelines for Local Landmarks state
C. Renovations and Additions
2. Construction and Style,
All work should be done in the architectural style and in a technique
compatible with that of the original structure. Change that alters, removes,
or covers existing significant stylistic detail. shall not be permitted. _A
change which adds detail of another style will not 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..
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT
b. siding material - the Commission discourages the covering or alteration of
original materials with additional, siding. Structures already sided with
incompatible materials should be returned to a siding similar to the original
when renovation is considered.
RECOMMENDATION
This project came to the attention of the commission in regard, to siding
installation being performed with out COA by . the owner who maintains that he
was not notifiod*of Landmark designation by the previous owner. The Owner
furthermore indicates that the house had suffered considerable deterioration
prior to his taking possession. Paint and siding are clearly deteriorated at
present. The owner has furthe-r indicated that the rehabilitation project -was
commenced by the previous owner who installed vinyl replacement windows .
(including metal wrapping of trim features) and soffit. The present extent of
the siding is to the north and south walls of the rear wing (and a.little bit
beyond on the north). The wallsi have been insulated by blown cellulose with
plastic siding caps.
Tl,.-:•,! i-iio quest.ion as. Lo the deterioration of siding. and especially pairited
surfaces.. In the opinion of Staff this.is a classic case of paint failure
caused by condensation''in walls which -have been insulated without a vapor
barrier. Thismaybe expedited in the future a . s the owner has indicated that
he is progressively replacing interior plaster with Drywall and installing
batt insulation as this activity proceeds.
The present extent of vinyl,siding is limited to the rear end of the building
which was executed in a.more.primitive-style of construction.. it is imitative
of the original motif in that the original siding would had corner boards
articulating corners similar to the vinyl system. The front sections of the
house would be considerably more difficult to treat with such similarity due
to the following details:
1) variation of siding spacing.
2) mitered siding corners without corner boards
3) flared.skirting at story division including crown mould.
Although the Owner has proposed to retain exposed shingle gable and dentil
frieze, Staff finds the above detail features to be character giving. Even
setting.aside the issues of variation in spacing and mitered corners, Staff
believes that it would be extremely difficult to retain other characteristic
features while installing vinyl siding.
Staffrecommends*thatthe commission approve the siding to the extent that it
has been completed at the rear and to the rear wall. Staff recommends that the,
commission deny extending the siding beyond these areas. As noted above,
interior remodeling with concurrent replacement of defective insulation system
Is likely to correct paint failure and allow resumed paint maintenance at
reasonable intervals and expense. Should the commission choose to allow
additional siding, Staff recommends that the 'retention of the flared skirting
and crown moulding be added to the shingle gable and dentil frieze as features
necessary to the integrity of the style of the house.
DBD
3/11/98
+ rr! � �,, '•:=' a,�,'r :��„�+�'^+�4.=�, �yi:i�y'y�S„�.{�.i=J�j!.�i
4�w3`y:.10:tza'.� ����'4 �.�w� '' •'_ •� �>� ~ ».' _.....�,.L.`<1�4,�.4_'.:... R.�'��z5 ��:..:��..'�:. ..... ..... ... .. .,_
t
i
i
t
cAV
-------------
is T
rr.
V
� ,
G
Scc�
a
Q -t
� N
Q
I,N vtp(],
Q 10 1zlz
al .
_.0
*;k'h' tk.Y:. ,. s• ..a....�.4'«,:". r;b't wFt.Yt.�i,,,:J''rii
'al.�
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT
APPLICATION -- 1998-0225
PROPERTY -- 515 Riverside Drive
South Bend, IN
OWNER -- Linda Kay Magnuson
DESIGNATION -= LHD=RB
RATING -- Contributing C/9
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE/HISTORIC CONTEXT
This house was built in 1906 by Seth Hammond and Leslie Whit, comb as part of
their real estate ventures in their newly platted addition to the City. Mr.
Hammond and Mr. Whitcomb were real estate moguls, they built this house and
many others in the area as rental properties. They rented this particular
house out until 1909 when Mr. Hammond sold the house to Fred Kellet for
$3,250:00. Mr. -Keller sold the house three days later to Miss Emma Allen for
the same amount. Miss Allen rented the house to Arthur. Sturgis from 1909 to
1914 and from 1914 to 1937 the house was rented to Otto Larson. Over-
ten
verten years the house was rented to.a variety -of tenants. In 1947 Miss Allen,
now known as Mrs: John Larson, moved into the front half of the house and
rented the.back half to Bernard &.Virginia Jawaorski. This arrangement lasted
until 1955 when Mrs. Larson rented the entire house to Robert Yates. Two
years later Mrs. Larson rented the house to Wilbur.M. Thomas, whom she
"eventually sold the house to. Mr. Thomas was a supervisor.at Dallas & Mavis,
he lived in the house until 1965 when he sold it to Samuel Joseph Nati. .Mr.
Nati sold the house four months later.to Bernard E. Kowalski. Mr. Kowalski.
used the house as a.rental, he rented it to Thomas O'Dell for..two years. In
1969 Mr. Kowalski sold the house to Fredonia DeMan, the widow of John F.C.
DeMan, who died in 1957. Mrs. DeMan resided in the house until she was no,
longer capable of living alone and was placed into a nursing home. After it
was established that Mrs. DeMan would never be able to leave the nursing home
and return home her guardians, The St. Joseph Bank & Trust Company, sold the
house.to William E. Caparo for $14,500.00. Mr. Caparo was a teacher with the
South Bend Community Schools. He and his wife, Christina resided there until
1986 when they sold it to Robert Yonto. Mr. Yonto owned the house until 1997
when he sold it to Wesley & Linda Magnuson.
PROPOSED CHANGE
Applicants are proposing several different alterations, first is to replace
the existing aluminum siding with vinyl siding (see photo 3 for example),
however, if this project is too costly then the applicant proposes to paint
the aluminum siding. Secondly, the applicants want to replace the metal
awning located on the second level window (see photos 1 & 2). The third
proposal was to landscape the front yard by tiering it, however, since the
submittal of the application the owners have decided against this course of
action and have opted to allow existing ground covering to grow over the area
that was to be tiered. In conjunction with the landscaping of the front yard
the owners propose to remove some bricks from the back yard that are causing
water to move in the direction of the foundation. They would replace these
bricks with plants, bricks and a bi.rdbath,. The fifth request is to replace
the faltering gates located next to the garage and the house and install a
four to five foot tall chain link or privacy fence to complete the enclosure
of the backyard.- Finally the owner is proposing to -paint the metal window
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT
frames on the sun porch and the rusted over service door to.the garage.
STANDARDS
The Preservation Guidelines for River Bend Historic District state:
b) ....The Guidelines for the River Bend District follow the Rehabilitation
Model....
I.A.l. Required
New plant materials, fencing.... shall be compatible with the character of the
neighborhood in size, scale, material and color.
I.A.3. Prohibited
Signs ... new.plant material, fencing... which are out of scale or inappropriate
to the neighborhood may not be used.
II.A.2: Recommend
Whenever possible, the original building materials should be restored. Metal
or vinyl siding may be used as an alternative to maintaining or replacing the
original surface material when it resembles the original surface material.
When used over wood surfaces, this siding should be the same size and style as
the original wood. Ample ventilation must be afforded ttie. structure
aluminum or vinyl siding has been installed in order to prevent increased
deterioration of the structure from moisture and/or insects.
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT
RECOMMENDATION
This is a somewhat complicated application as several of its items may not
require a COA or might be approved by Staff. However, as some itemsclearly
require review.by the commission, we are presenting the total here.Staff
appreciates the effort of the Owner to comply with regulations by the
submittal.
The most significant item to be addressed is the siding issue. The house has
been previously sided with aluminum Biding which was installed over all trim
features which have been obscured or removed. The Owner proposes to either
remove thi . s 'siding and install vinyl siding -or paint.the existing siding.
The guid . elines indicate that when siding -is -removed, restoration existing
historical siding (i.e. siding repair -and painting) is.encouraged. Staff
.presumes -.that restoration of the wood siding would not be problematic but that
.many facing and moulding features would probably be found to be missing or
damaged. It is fairly certain that a shingle gable would be found and Staff
encourages the Owner.to.at-least restore this feature. On the other hand, it
would probably be -feasible to install vinyl siding over the aluminum in this
case as nearly all. details have already been removed or obscured. From the
viewpoint -of replicating original.appearance in.new siding, the proposed vinyl
siding would better represent board size and spacing while the existing
aluminum would better represent the.mitered corner condition probable for the
original.
Staff would prefer a solution of removing the aluminum, replacing missing trim
features, and.repair and painting of the original siding. From our experience,
this would be the least.expensive,.most autbenti'c, and best appearing
approach. However, any.of*the approaches outlined above would meet the
requirements of.the guidelines-. In the case of the proposal to remove aluminum
and replace -with vinyl, Staff would encourage the replacement of at least
selectedtrimfeatures.
The installation of terracing would require approval. However,we understand
this item to have been reconsidered and Staff recommends,approval of the
planting of groundc.overon the embankment.
The gates proposed for replacement are composed of bent; tubular frames with
braided wire infill these gates are character giving features. They are
characteristic of design from the 1920s and 30s and are at this point in time
rare. Staff would recommend their repair and retention if possible in
coordination with the proposed new fencing. This fencing is typical of the
neighborhood and Staff recommends approval of this item.
Surface features at the back yard, including the removal of pavers, and
painting of the garage and porch do not require review.
Finally the replacement ofthe awning may be approved by Staff although we
would recommend its removal.
DBD -
3/11/98
- «I tib
�t`of;,.
VIM..
F�ro(\+ Sts P-iuerslcic- 0(\--=- p 6� .�-
,
,n
✓#�. �`'^ }.. Fi� y 11t r .ter �� I�'� - �,^I rr ; ..
+ '.-b < ••�.�. pay,-..� �k 1� �r y fir... } ,a< 1C{""t�e-- �t«
aw-
4.
kA
50
AN
VO
AW
v
` -
IJ
j',
1 67
, i�i`,�' 1'�; _ t � t f �3� ,��.�++•�y #,fix, .w � ..
fjI��Y
LlKlby.`' SF. } tY °a,R"+,,.'t'"•!� S f C.AYls�r�
' t
a. .r ., .• r `a '1 a �r Y f. R
All
f ` �
} �,i�c'` a ., �e � . .Fi'� �� F? �. *.it3� ��.•�'+�'• •i:- � } mer? i44� n`.';.: �.�y�'.r € r -
t a r f
,.i�`+sr+rnf.v .,. � i . w•� �.� .r` ..+e .. .lr. }4 � � ��� � � - � .«ta , . A „i. a �� v ��..,,a..,, _
f '
}
D
f
,
,n
✓#�. �`'^ }.. Fi� y 11t r .ter �� I�'� - �,^I rr ; ..
+ '.-b < ••�.�. pay,-..� �k 1� �r y fir... } ,a< 1C{""t�e-- �t«
aw-
4.
kA
50
AN
VO
AW
v
` -
IJ
j',
1 67
, i�i`,�' 1'�; _ t � t f �3� ,��.�++•�y #,fix, .w � ..
fjI��Y
LlKlby.`' SF. } tY °a,R"+,,.'t'"•!� S f C.AYls�r�
' t
a. .r ., .• r `a '1 a �r Y f. R
All
f ` �
} �,i�c'` a ., �e � . .Fi'� �� F? �. *.it3� ��.•�'+�'• •i:- � } mer? i44� n`.';.: �.�y�'.r € r -
t a r f
,.i�`+sr+rnf.v .,. � i . w•� �.� .r` ..+e .. .lr. }4 � � ��� � � - � .«ta , . A „i. a �� v ��..,,a..,, _
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT
APPLICATION --1998-0305
PROPERTY -- 1127 East Wayne Street
.South Bend, IN
OWNER -- Leo McCormick Jr.
DESIGNATION -- LHD-EW
RATING -- Contributing C/10
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE/HISTORIC.CONTEXT
The Whitcomb and Keller Corporation built this H.R. Stapp designed Tudor
Revival house in 1929 and sold it to Dr. Charles C. Terry Jr. -Dr. Terry was a
surgeon associated with the South Bend Clinic, which his father founded. Dr.
Terry and his wife, Mildred, -',lived in the house until 1945'when he sold it to
his wife as part, of a possible divorce settlement. Mrs. Terry sold the house
in May of 1946:to.Gr'anville Keller, who sold the house a month later to Ralph
?ohnscn. '!r. Tn}^gpn rcr.*gid tl!C (': *lc ] 1lo,: m•. Inn
V �_
U.S. Rubber Company. Mr. Johnson sold the house to Phillip H. Sanders Sr., in
1949. Mr. Sanders was the president of Sobenite Plastics, he and his wife,
Elise Brown -Sanders lived in the house until 1955 when they sold it to Daniel
D. Stiver.. Mr.-Stiver owned the house until 1998 when he sold it to the
current owner, Leo H. MacCormick Jr.
PROPOSED CHANGE
Applicant proposes to replace the windows on the second floor, excluding those
located on the street facade, with Eagle brand custom twin casement windows.
In addition to.the windows the applicant proposes to tuck point the bricks.
STANDARDS
The Preservation Guidelines
b) .... The Guidelines for the
Rehabilitation Model....
II.C.1. Required
Original windows and doors,
decorative glass, pediments,
deteriorated beyond repair,
original.
for East Wayne Street Historic District:
East Wayne Street District -follow the
including sash, Lintels, sills, shutters,
hoods, and hardware shall be retained or when,
replaced with units and trim,resembling the•
II.C.2. Recommended
For energy efficiency, steel casement may require interior storm windows. If
steel casement windows have to be replaced or removed, windows of similar size
and style should be 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,installed.
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT
RECOMMMENDATION
This application seeks to replace original metal casement sash with new clad
casement sash. The existing type of sash is thermally inefficient and commonly
becomes defective and difficult in operation due to corrosion of its parts. In
this case the proposed replacement windows replicate the appearance of the
antique sash in operation with the exception that some existing windows had a
fixed transom panel and these would not. Proportionally,. the replacement
windows have a heavier frame at the edge and interior applied light divisions
which approximate the weight of the existing. Staff recommends approval of
this application.:
DBD .
3/5/98
IL
—SRQ waft--
ILI, it
AW
-4vlt,
is
vr
ki
I
ill
41 �,qw
I-V - WAV
Aw
13
,✓ 1�f
H
7 3.
LS
41 1 ••
• �f �+
lr�f�.f
t t`
mar
` f hi
. -
•'
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT
APPLICATION -- 1998-0305-2
PROPEiTY 621 Lincolnway East
So4th.Bend, IN
OWNER Joe MacHatton
DESIGNATION -- LHD-EP
RATING -- Contributing C/9
STATEMENT,OF SIGNIFICANCE HISTORIC CONTEXT
This house was built in 1891, the firs * t 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. Parker was a retired farmer who owned the property until his
death, in 1918, at which time it passed down to his daughter, Iona Hempe'y.
Mrs. Hempey used the house as a rental, renting it to Cecelia Garstka in 1939
and ovent:ually selll;n- it tn her ;n 1944. Miss Garstka was an employee at
Wilson Brothers for.several years.before going to work for the Bendix
Corporation. Miss Gars'tka divided the house into two units, she resided in
one of them and rented out the other. This arrangement lasted until her death
in May of 1977. Miss Garstka, having no children of -her -own, left the house
to her niece and nephew, Helen and Joseph Slott who immediately sold the house
to the current owner, Mr. Joseph MacFatton.
PROPOSED CHANGE
Applicant propos ' es to demolish the existing deteriorating one, stall garage
that is located at the rear of the lot and replace it with a new heated two
stall garage.
STANDARDS
The Preservation Guidelines for Lincolnway East Historic District:
b)t ... The Guidelines for the Lincolnway East District follow the
Rehabilitation Model....
III. New Construction
See Attachment
V. General
A. Buildings in the Di.strict.should not be demolished. However, where a
building poses a threat to the public safety, and demolition is the only
alte'rnative, documentation by way of photographs, measured drawings, or other
descriptive methods should be made of both the exterior and interior of the
building.
RECOMMENDATION
This application is pertinent to code enforcement action which presently had
cited the garage for deterioration. This hearing has been postponed to late
April in anticipation of HPC action.
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT
The guidelines discourage demolition. Staff finds the building to be neglected
but repairable. As of this writing, no'plans have been received by our office
for the proposed garage. Should the Owner -desire construction of a larger
garage which has been stated to serve also as a possible workshop, Staff finds
no reason why this structure could not be appended to the existing structure
in a repaired state.Staff recommends denial of the application for demolition
and denial of the proposed garage in the absence of submitted plans.
DBD
3/5/98
4
1
t
t
Y
r
�'
n
a
R'
t"�.^:� i4t �� -. 'y'. .. - � .� - � _. z4x gat• ,��" .. -- ... .. ..-_ ,`�z��; �'�'t~ti��*-'�"�
� t
<9
'Oi ��'t ttt to `C' ��i �_ .? _ _�._-t '' - � _... ylCf't. t`s ,.;tom i� �: ..k " _ -!. -��_ _ i."S�x2"•s: r..:�,.4v:.�{ rt •c�S
8 �` 1_.z� _k` -:fit "•4i�•.:_c-----'---•---�--'t`-'-- --- 't'�i'-___ it:.�.c:. -.. •yi c�i :'_ �--------- - -- :rte-.:. �. �;_.
�r
t
r
it
r ,r
�r
f.f;.
C,r
4
V)
�,i,,+�4 1 ti . w• 1_. yu � � C ' i; 0.t 1,;•4 � � . f, yt." , ! - �
�'�"�'ii'l'�e "'}' � : &ie ti•;`w �. �- ."i..1,F� - ,;'(� : i ' : A i :' _ '> C� a._ � .`,[ 1 Cy • ' ' _ . i -. , ,_. . e -- ' � - _ _ _i �• �'+�'yx"•A��'S'14i~�W4`,-��ai ��` '.*"kit ;r
�i'h.��..i�.�i�'.w.r"'!,.-`�.ti:'L.�,.i� _ _r't:__.._..i.....���v_+.,lcr'k'z..'�"z'� Vie`.:.- .�5:e�� L•r._���'._.i
5
1!�
wi
5
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT
lb APPLICATION -- 1998-0226
PROPERTY -- 1321 East Wayne Street So.
South Bend, IN
OWNER -- Tom & Teri Evons
DESIGNATION -- LHD-EWS
RATING -- Contributing C/9
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE HISTORIC CONTEXT
This house was built in 1930 by either,James B. Baker or by Whitcomb and
Keller Corporation for James B. Baker. Mr. Baker purchased the property from
the Whitcomb and Keller corporation in December of 1929. Mr. Baker was born
in Oregon, where he married Erminnie Tucker. They came to South Bend in 1941
at which time Mr. Baker -became the secretary for Birdselt.Manufacturing
Company. Mrs. Baker passed away in 1948; however,,Mr. Baker continued to
reside in the house until his death in 1956,.at which ti.me the Baker's
executor :gold the house to .James L. Lamb for $28,000.00. Mr. Lamb was a
physician, he and his wife, Jane, lived in the house until 1967 when they sold.
it to Harry Kevorkian,. the public relations director at WNDU-TV. Mr.
Kevorkian resided there until 1987 at which he sold the house to Joseph C.
Dunfee of Dunfee Realty. Mr. Dunfee owned the house until 1994 when he sold
it to Micheal Lydoudis who sold the house three years later to the present
owner, Teri Evons. '
PROPOSED CHANGE
Applicant proposes to erect a six foot tall stockade.style- wood privacy fence
around the backyard.
STANDARDS
The Preservation Guidelines for East Wayne Street Historic District state:
b) .... The Guidelines for the East Wayne Street District follow the
Rehabilitation Model....
I.A.I. Required
Major landscaping items, fencing, walkways.... shall be compatible with the
character of the neighborhood in si.ze,,scale, material., and color.
1.A.3. Prohibited
Signs, streetlights .... fencing walkways, and paving materials which are out of
scale or inappropriate to the neighborhood may not be used.
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT
RECOMMENDATION
The Owner proposes to erect 6' privacy fence around the rear yard and 4'
fencing between the rear yard and driveway. At locations where existing
fencing exists, it will remain. Proposed fencing will be constructed of 3"
boards with a stockade profile. None of the new fencing will be visible from
the street. Staff recommends approval.
DBD
3/11/98
�... � j � 1
���'� ''
�� ��
�� �
_��y�
�. �.:
,. ...
WOOD FENCE
,r
NO. FT.
HEIGHT`
STYLEfL�i°
TYPE WOOD�r.
BOARD SI7F
COST SIZE�f
SKETCH ?q `
'OST DESIGN /lt'e ec 1 1 1'
'OST HOLES
;TRINGERS
f
. �.�WALK GATES W
D.D. GATES W
FOOD SIDE !N 2COUTedam CSG i fia�� gyp ` , C Jfc r e'/' Cxi�Gj
scattered.
istomer.
fte #. ,4
c>zr--7 11e,J--„ s -
RIVAL: TEAR OUT AND REMOVAL of
FEET OF {
CERTIFICATE. OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT
46 APPLICATION -- 1998-0302
PROPERTY -- 1308 East Wayne South
South Bend, IN
OWNER -- Stephen & Louise Anella
DESIGNATION -- LHD-EWS
RATING -- dontributing C/9
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE/HISTORIC CONTEXT
This colonial Revival style house was built in 1948 by the Whitcomb and Keller
Corporation... Upon completion of the house they sold it to Frank & Kathleen
Allen. Kathleen Moore Allen was a special education teacher at Jefferson
School in South Bend. Mr. Allen was the principle of Muncie High School of
Indiana from 1921 to 1925 at which.time he became the Superintendent of Muncie
Schools. This lasted until'1931 when he.and Mrs. Allen moved to South bend so
he coii1A except the job as Superintendent of South Bend Schools. Mr. Allen
remained with the South Bend Schools until 1955 when he was afford the
position of Athletic Director at Indiana University. In order to.accept this
position the Allen's had to move', so they sold the house to William R. Heins.
Mr. Heins was the Vice President of Associates Investment Company. He and his
family only lived in the house for two years, he sold the house to James E. &
Marcella Keating in 1957. Mr..Keating was one of South Bends most prominent
attorneys. He began as the assistant to the U.S. District Attorney and by
1941 he was the U.S. District Attorney. He remained in this position until
1954 at which time he became -associated with the law firm of Voor, Jackson and
McMichea.l. Mr. Keating resided in the house until 1967 when. he was killed in
a car accident. Mrs. Marcella Keating was critically injured in this
accident,.but, she managed to survive and went on.living in the house until
1974 when she sold it to the present owner, Mr. Stephen Anella.
PROPOSED CHANGE
Applicants are proposing to construct a 48 square foot addition to the rear of
the house and a new roof on the family rooms.
STANDARDS
The Preservation Guidelines for East Wayne Street Historic District state:
b) ....The Guidelines for the East Wayne Street District follow the
Rehabilitation Model....
I. Environment
I.B.2. Recommended
New site work should also be appropriate to existing surrounding site elements
in scale, type, and appearance.
III.New Construction
III.A.1. Required
Additions to existing buildings shall be related 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.
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT
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
Any style or period of architecture that is incompatible with the existing.
should not be permitted in new additions.
III.B.1. Required
Materials used on an addition to an existing structure shall relate to the
existing or original -materials of the structure. Also, as much of the
original structure as possible -shall be retained so that the addition. could be
removed without damage to the.basic structure and appearance of the building.
III.B.2. Recommended
Metal or vinyl siding may be used when it is the only feasible alternative.
This siding should be compatible with the original size and style and with the
materials of other buildings in the district.
RECOMMENDATION
The proposed addition encloses an area which is currently the stoop of the.
rear door. Its details conform to the requirements of the guideltines. The
proposed alteration of the roof remedies problems commonly associated with
flat roofs. None of the proposed work will be visible from the street. Neither
does it adversely impact any historical feature of the house. Staff
recommends approval.
DBD .
3/11/98
ALLEY 14'
65'
M(37'T4
20.167'
ZEXISTING
GARAGE
�7
C14
r
NEW ADDITION (48 Sq. Ft.)
EXISTING SCREEN PORCH
14.5' --'9.0' 10.5* 13.42' 17.6'
co
ui
jr Ar -
1.75' v
ai
EXISTING HOUSE
NOTE:
'6
IN SUNNYMEDE RESTRICTIONS
FRONT SETBACK IS 40' and
MINIMUM SIDEYARD IS S;z 7
0
113 x 2/5 x 65' = 8.66' Ar -
L 14.4' 32.9' 17.7'
65*
EAST WAYNE STREET SOUTH
SITE, PLAN
SCALE: I" — 20'-0" NORTH
70' to SUNNYSIDE
Ioi
CK�
3r��N.i.�''�4`' s`lc_�kw..`t...'�.4^l �+,.`'r '-. _a=,'� a.t ._ '�j'. �•t �,s •'*`YL _: ti j f'�•', .:' � -�; - tip' r � f .
����-
��i air.. ...t.. t
� 'M �
. • tl'.r
, • •
_
Zf
. _,fit a,.�w►.a�Mc.» .�r..
, y� � t � A ,
1♦
A t- 9.- q,
W �4 ,. ('fid
4
I :
.L ���:����—: L c ' : s1 .�� �'.'�'`,'.: `s.��-s: = c i _: ti) ; :' - Y +y-. < -•'-. K,.`., . - - . '
_ s.•• � �'♦ ii-F�. `S Ft •.:l �-�M L.s \.i �Y__:e�-j<"l! 1
•n�:�t�:�taz..aa..:.... ._.:r ..r_cL..a_"k._..i-�'".:'. <:��.`�:LL[ _ .div �f. ::tel.:. -s.' .-__. ....._._ ... _..`..T�..r e.'•_. ,...-..�`.R•.��.'t�ti:a''1 F�?�,.fi: .
y `y
,r
17.T,
E41)
3
E. Mechanical Services.
The majority of the structures within the District have oil or
gas heat, and have a single brick chimney through the roof.
Some houses have one or two window air conditioners.
(1) Required
Required mechanical systems shall be placed in areas that
will result in the least possible alteration to the
structural integrity and physical appearance of the
building.
----- ----- ---- -
(
Window air conditioners and exhaust fans should be
installed in the rear or in inconspicuous side windows.
Early mechanical systems, including early plumbing and
lighting fixtures, should be ut:.lized whenever possible.
(3) Prohibited
Holes shall not be cut through walls or roofs in areas that
can be seen from the street to accommodate an air
conditioner or other mechanical equipment.
(4) Not Recommended
Exterior electrical and telephone cables should not be
attached to the principal elevations of the building.
III. New Construction.
A. Height and Proportion.
The majority of the structures in the District are two and a
half stories high and are square, rectangular or irregular in
plan. There are a few one and a half story bungalows. The most
prevalent facade proportions have a 1:1 height to width ratio; a
few are 2:1.
(1) Required
The height of a new structure and its height to width
proportions shall be consistent with adjacent buildings in
the District. The building height shall be no greater than
that of the tallest existing structure and no less than
that of the lowest existing structure in the same block.
Facade proportion shall be established by permitting no
18
structure with a facade wider or narrower than those
existing in the same block. Additions to existing
buildings shall be related in height and proportion to the
existing structure.
(2) Recommended
Contemporary designs should be compatible in height,
proportion, character and mood c, the building or
neighborhood.
(3) Prohibited
Additions that would add new height ur change the existing
facade of a building and change its scale and architectural
character may not be constructed.
(4) Not Recommended
New stories should not be added :or would existing stories
be removed which would destroy ioportant architectural
details, features and spaces of the building. Any style or
period of architecture that is incompatible with the
existing should not be permitted in new additions.
B. Buildinz Materials.
Wall materials in the District range from brick, clapboard, and
shingles to aluminum siding.
(1) Required
Exterior materials used on a new E--ructure shall be
compatible in type, scale, texture and color with adjacent
structures. Materials used on an addition to an existing
structure shall relate to the existing or original
materials of that structure. Also, as much of the original
structure as possible shall be retained so that the
addition could be removed without damage to the basic
structure and appearance of the building.
(2) Recommended
Aluminum siding may be used when it is the only feasible
alternative. This siding should be compatible in size and
style with the materials of other buildings in the District.
19
ti
(3) Prohibited
Inappropriate materials, such as asbestos, asphalt, cast
stone or artificial brick may not be used.
(4) Not Recommended
Glass block should.not be used.. Concrete block should not
be used for anything other than foundations.
IV. Safety and Code Planning.
A. Safety and Code Plannine,.
(1) Required
Code requirements shall be complied with in such a manner
that the existing character of the building is preserved.
(2) Recommended
Local code officials should be consulted to investigate
alternative life safety measures that will preserve the
architectural integrity of the strficture. Variances for
historic properties should be investigated:
(3) Prohibited
Construction of new stairways and elevators that would
alter the existing exit facilities or important
architectural features and spaces shall be prohibited.
(4) Not Recommended
Fire prevention equipment should not damage the appearance
or fabric of the building.
V. General.
A. Buildings in'the District should not be demolished. However,
where a building poses a threat to the public safety, and
demolition is the only alternative, documentation by way of
photographs, measured drawings, or other descriptive methods
should be made of both the exterior and interior of the building.
B. A Certificate of Appropriateness is required before moving any
building or structure. The moving of a building within, out of,
or into the District is discouraged; however, moving is
preferred to demolition.
ME
REAR FACADE
ELK-PRESTIQUE I
SHINGLES (MATCH EXISTING)
12
71
413 PORCH ROOF
-TER
EXISTING' BRICK
EXISTING CEDAR SHINGLES
EXISTING ALUMINUM GUTTERS
EXISTING WINDOW
TO REMAIN
NEW ELK-PRESTIOUE 1 SHINGLES
MATCH EXISTING
SINGLE PLY EPDWROOF MEM13RANE
EXISTING BRICK CHIMNEY
I
WHITE ALUMINUM GUTTER
(MATCH EXISTING)
NEW 18" CEDAR SHINGLES
(MATCH EXISTING) -PAINT
immwinurnim. ivinum. gm, Tim. umvin, Tunninimminuilm
fulln. Tim. Tumnammumw flnumumumff mumiMillnuflnum, W3,111MA TIM invillnum ff In, Im. um, ivimmumnuln. n
EXIT
SCALE: 1
FIRST FLOOR
/ 4'- 6" 4'-1 1/4" 1
� 1'-10 1/2" I
2'-0"
CLEAR ( I
/ — — � — — •=-1— - 111 -
NEW INSULATED STUD
WALLS — — — — —
\ NEW WINDOW
\ (I
AMD
RELO
DO OOR
HAROWAR
REMOVE EXISTING STRUCTURE
COMPLETLY AS SHOWN
(3 EQUAL) NEW STORAGE
CLOSET w/48" WIDE X ao" /I \� EXISTING
61 -FOLD DOORS S-1 FAMILY ROOK
i
� - '
� o
i r -o" Z
TOILET
IoGi
j
0 j
1 11111 ` H0 I - ' , `�•.��
i
G, KITCHEN -
I
HALL .
Z
i
EPDM ROOFING MEMBRANE
SLOPE ROOF
GUTTER AND DOWNSPOUT
TO MATCH EXISTING IN
MATERIAL AND SHAPE
BEDROOM #3
A�--
NEW PITCH ROOF w/"ELK-PRES110UE 1"
SHINGLES (MATCH EXISTING)
N,
N N, 1 If N
NN
N.
Jil
,41
MIN
'N
'N IN
N. At
x
"N, N
N
11
EXISTING EPDM ROOFING
MEMBRANE TO REMAIN
TIE INTO NEW ROOF AS REOUIRED
BY MANUFACFTUIRER
Nlf
Hit
At
BEDROOM
#4
HALL
11
EXISTING EPDM ROOFING
MEMBRANE TO REMAIN
TIE INTO NEW ROOF AS REOUIRED
BY MANUFACFTUIRER
MINUTES -OF THE REGULAR MEETING
of the
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Regular Monthly Meeting County Commissioner's
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 Petra'ss.
Commission staff present were: Rhonda Saunders Administrative Assistant and
Aladean DeRose, 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
was coincidental that the owners did not have enough money to rehabilitate the
carriage house 'behind '1202 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 Certificate of Appropriateness"applicat ions and yet forgot that
.they needed a Certificate of Appropriateness this. time.- 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 statedd-that Mrs. Saunders should 'notify,
the' -building permit 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..,Oxiin_ stated that he wanted to "rearrange the agenda, by placing the
Nominating* Committee at.theend 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 "
I." 1. December 15, 1997 ."
Mr. 'Oxian asked if there were any corrections: Mrs. Hostetler noted ,that
there were some typographical and grammar errors. Mrs. Hostetler moved to
accept the'minutes-with the appropriate grammatical corrections on --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 Lucke and Stan Molenda
to discuss the'gate proposals for Chapin Park National Register•District. They'
discussed, in,detail, the.location and designs -of the 'gates. Mr. Fine noted
that there are six proposed locations, but, only one of them falls`with in the
Commissions, jurisdiction. This site is located in both the Riverside Drive
Historic District 'arid 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. -
iverside-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 decisionsthat 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 Distriet. Mr. Talley asked if there was a consensus, taken, of .owners
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 due'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
r
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_came then it, would become Ia 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.montbs._ 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.fr6m 45 days to.60 day's. Mrs. DeRose"stited that she. had
drafted. it -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
hestaff_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
Appropriateness. Mr. Oxian noted that he had received the letter.: Mrs.,
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.in an Historic
District or Landmark has to contact the Historic Preservation Commission
office.
D. "Staf.f• Reports
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 attended .the 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. Montelpurchased 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 stated that 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. He further reiterated that they'knew
)/nothing'of it-being,a Landmark until some one turned -them in and.they received
.stop -work notice.. Mr. Montel' also stated that he has received 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 riot 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
V
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. DeRose 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,
twhich is.much more lenient then "A" Standards.' Mr. Talley asked if'Mr. Montel
understood what .was happening. 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 tip 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 was coming off 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 Oxian 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. Sporleder noted that the St. Joseph Heritage River 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, lodgedagainst 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 MACOG.
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 with the
'County Engineer to -.reassess the bridges structural condition. There was some
•discussion over old reports stating that the bridge was structurally unsound.
VIII. Announcements and'.Miscellaneous Matters
None
IX. Adjournment
Mrs. Hostetler moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:40pm.
the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Revised 317/.98 C
,Mr. Borkowski seconded
MINUTES OF.THE REGULAR -MEETING
of the
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Regular, -Monthly Meeting County Commissioner's
7:30 p.m. Conference•Room
Tuesday February 17,;;1998 7th Floor County -City Bldg.
I.'Call to Order _
,John Oxian, President of the commission, brought the meeting to order at 7:30
p.m.
II. Roll Call
Cormnission members present were: John Oxian and Adrian Fine.
-,Commission staff -present were: David Duvall, Director, Rhonda Saunders,,
Administrative Assistant and Aladean DeRose, Counsel..
Also attending 'the meeting were: Mr. Sporleder, Loveda Jones, .Tom Selsor,
Steve Moerlein,' Ed Francis,:Theo Pappas, Cleo Hickey and Margaret -King.
Mrs. DeRose stated that since there was no quorum then the Commission members
present', would have to make a motion ' to meet. as a committee as a whole. Mr.
Fine moved to meet as .a committee as a whole. Mr.-Oxian seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
III. New Business
A. Re -Rating of miscellaneous structures for Indiana. Historic -Sites ,and
Structures Inventory.
Mr. Oxian stated that he wanted the re-rating'of the properties located at 911
Golden and 214'West Jefferson, in the Indiana Historic Sites' and Structures
Inventory, to be voted on as soon a possible.- To ensure the speedy passage of
the re-rating-he-stated_that-the-absent-members-would-vote-on-the-issue-over
the phone.' Mr. Oxian moved to increase the ratings of 911 Golden"and'214,West
Jefferson from contributing nine and ten to significant elevens': Mr. Fine
seconded the motion. The motion passed by way of votes given over the phone
with Mrs_. Sporleder and Mrs. Choitz abstaining do to both of'them;being•out of
-town.
B. 214 West Jefferson Resolution ,
Mr. Fine noted that.there was -an effort being put forth by the owner of 214 W.
Jefferson to get it listed on the State and National Registers. He further..
stated that it would. be helpful to theowner if the Commission would formally
support these efforts. Mr. Fine moved- that the Preservation Commission
support any efforts to list 214 W. Jefferson on -the State and/or National
Register, as -it most likely, has the integrity and significance to make it
eligible for that type of listing. Mr. Oxian seconded the motion. The motion
passed by way- of votes given over the`phone with Mrs. _Sporleder and Mrs.
Choitz abstaining do to both of.them being out of town.
IV. -Hearing of Visitors.
Mr. Oxian asked if t he' people. present, 'who- were representing the Morris Civic
Auditorium project-, 'would, like- to give their presentation now. -Mrs. Hickey,
director of the Morris Civic Auditorium, 'introduced -those involved and .noted
that Mr: Ed- Francis and Mr. Theo �Pappas, from Kessler and Associates
Architects, would be discussing the architectural and historic issues of the
project.
Mrs. Hickey. stated that the- first bid has been- issued, the second bid,
concerning the structural steel, is scheduled to go out next week and the bond
would be sold February, _18. -,__-.She . went on to. note that these. dates were
-
.......... . - -- _.
necessary to ensure that, the Morris' .Civic -Auditorium would .reopen by the
spring of 1999. Mr. Oxian asked when the third bid would. be- released. -,Mrs.
Hickey stated that the third bid,' involving the exterior skin; was scheduled
to go out - by March. 26. Mr. Oxian asked if Mrs.- Hickey was to give her,
presentation again at�the March 16th Commission meeting, would she still have
enough time to'get.the third bid ,out by the 26th. -Mrs. Hickey. stated that to
stay on track they would need to give the presentation and .have a decision
made by early March. Mr. Oxian stated that he would then have to call a
special meeting. M'r. Duvall interjected that he and Mrs..Hickey had discussed
this possibility and its need for proper legal notice, which takes,fourteen
days. Which makes the earliest -possible date for a meeting, on March 2. Mr.
Oxian stated. that Mrs. Saunders should call the Commission members to find out
'who can and can not make it to this special meeting- and then.have Mr. Duvall
set up the necessary legal notices.- Mr. Fine asked if,this.date would work
for Mrs. Hickey. Mrs. Hickey stated that she would be there, however,'the
architects, being from Detroit, might not 'be able to attend. Mrs. DeRose
stated'that'the architects could make their presentation tonight at which time -
it would be recorded and then whom ever attends the meeting on the second.can
answer questions and expand on he' presentation for those Commission members '
not present today. Mr. Oxian asked what.would happen if changes are proposed
and the architects are not present. Mrs. Hickey stated that maybe one 'of the
architects could attend. Mr. Francis, an architect with.Kessler Associates,
stated that they would have someone at the meeting._ Mr. Oxian-stated that,.
since the architects would be present'at the special meeting then they did not
have to give -their presentation tonight unless they wanted to: Mr. Pappas, an
architect with Kessler Associates, stated,. that they .wanted to address the
known areas 'of concern now so that they could, be fixed before the proposed
March meeting.
Mr. Francis began the presentation., by stating that the' primary drive behind
the renovationis to make the facility function as a performing arts center,
which'means -there will be major work done. on the interior of the structure.
He noted '.that the most major, alterations in the interior will deal with,
acoustics,, lighting, safety and color. schemes. Mr. Francis further stated
that, all architecturally. significant interior elements will be'restored, .
including color schemes, at which time he went on to discuss how the colors_
were chosen and what -the color schemes were.:,
Mr. Francis noted items _that had to' do .with the sound proofing of the a
Auditorium that would effect the exterior of the building. He stated that one
such item will -be the installation of .expensive acoustical sound isolation
doors in the ,exterior wall containing the fire escapes,. which are to be
restored. Mr. Francis also stated that all the mechanical items .are to be
upgraded and placed, on' the. roof of the lowest rear elevation, to lend more
room to the performers needs. . These mechanical necessities will be. hidden
'from view by'a metal skirt. Mr. Francis passed around color -,samples for,the
interior and exterior and -'he passed around a- sample of the carpet for the
.lobby and halls.
Mr. Francis stated that it was.thei'r intent to replicate as best they can the
original design of the marquee. However, due to -excessive cost the marquee
will only cover three bays instead of the original five bays. -The two
remaining bays will have .an outline of the placement of .the original marquee
applied to their surface. Mr. Francis went' on to further discuss the design
2
of the marquee and its lighting -
Mr. --
ighting.
Mr.-- Francis ---stated --that -the --main--. expense --.--in -"the -_-project- would-- be -the
demolition of the existing stage house and its replacement. with a 'new stage' '
house designed to meet the technical' requirements of the largest traveling
Broadway. shows. He noted that the rear of -the new stage house would contain,
loading docks, dressing rooms and other similar features. Mr. -Francis stated
that originally they wanted to construct the stage house.in brick,.but-, do to
the high price of brick in this area of Indiana it was decided to use a,
pre -cast concrete instead.' Mr. Francis noted that.he had talked to Mr. Duvall
in regards to possibly having horizontal lines placed into the, -pre -cast
cement.- Mr. Francis, stated that. after some investigation into this
possibility it was concluded that it would require a - form liner to make the
lines and'that this processes would add additional cost with out obtaining the
desired affect. He reiterated that the most economical method -would be to
have the majority, of the stage house covered by a textured pre -cast concrete,
with the very top portion of the walls covered by a very smooth cement. The
smooth portion would consist of the top line of ,the building and a large
square section. located on the rear facade's upper left hand corner, which
would be used as a background for a Morris Civic Auditorium sign.. Mr. Francis
also discussed possible.options for illuminating the sign.
Mr. Francis -stated that the intent would be to have the .pre -cast be colored
and textured to better resemble a brick surface.. Mr. Oxian asked why'.Mr:
Francis felt the, pre -cast would be cheaper then• brick with out going out. and
taking bids. Mr. Pappas stated that they have a construction 'manager who'
advises -them on cost., He further stated that the 'pre -cast was also chosen
because of its versatility and speed in -application, which is a necessity for
such'a tight schedule. Mr.Francis further noted •that brick .can only be
applied -during certain weather.and has a much slower application time -then the
precast cement which-can_be_made-in-factory_condi-tions-and-instal-led-all=year.
round. He�also stated that. the pre -cast concrete fulfills the Secretary of
Interior .Standards in maintaining a. noticeable difference between new,
construction and I old construction. Mr. Oxian stated that he, disagrees .with
the National Register .on this one point and that.he would prefer it if the new -
construction was made - out of brick, like the existing. stagehouse. .'-There was
--some discussion over the idea of having to have a well defined . line ' to' ,show
the difference between new and old construction.' Mr. Franeis stated that they
feel very comfortable and professionally responsible in'choosing to use the
pre -cast cement. Mr. Duvall asked if the horizontal 'lines in the. renderings
were only'tone and not form work scoring. Mr. Pappas stated that the 'deep
lines shown in the renderings could not be done, however, he noted that it may
be possible to get some type.of scoring pattern. Mr. Francis stated that they
would like. to further explore .the -idea .of.horizontal scoring, but, the
examples they have seen have all been cheap in their appearance.
There was some discussion over the panels size and texture: Mr. Oxian asked.
if .,the panels were going to be one. solid color with • no . lines to.. give the
illusion of brick. Mr. Francis stated that they are leaning towards having
large panels with uniform' texture and joints.- There was some more discussion
over the panels and joints.. Mr. Francis stated that'the smooth panels..would,
have cut out classic letters.- Mr. Fine asked if the rear wall would remain a
secondary facadefor service use only. `Mr. Francis stated that it is a
service entrance, - however, 'he does not see 'it as a secondary facade do to the
fact it faces` a parking. He went on -to state that they want to maintain it as',
a function facade while making it'as attractive as possible, In an.attempt to
do this. and to tie the stagehouse in with the theatre itself there will be a
3 ,
sign with in the smooth surfaced area of the wall with cut out -classic letters
spelling out Morris Civic Auditorium. Use simple and unadorned so it'would
I.' not compete with'the main entrance.,' Mr. Francis stated -that they are'v_ery =
pleased with the projects progress and that they would like to ,answer any
questions the Commission may have.
Mrs. Hickey -stated that there were a lot of competing needs for limited funds
between the restoration projects,,, the stage -house., the mechanical needs and
the Palais Royal Ballroom. 'Mrs. King, 'a fund raiser for .Morris 'Civic
Auditorium, stated that they have great had a response from the private sector
and that. they. are roughly $1,000,000.00 under their goal. Mr. Francis .
restated that they were proud of.the way the plans are turning out. Mr. Oxian
'asked if they were going to work on the Palais Royal at .the same time as the
Auditorium. Mrs.t, Hickey stated that the, Palais will probably come online,'_
-four or five months after the Auditorium. Mr. Fine asked for clarification as
to what the earlier areas of concern were. Mr—Oxian stated that there really
-weren't any major issues . Mr._Duvall stated that he had,previously seen three
different sets of elevations and that the staff report was written based on
the last rendition -he had seen. Mr,. Duvall noted that he had wanted the back
'of,the 'building to be identifiable with the front_ of the building as one.
complete_ structure. He also noted that -they had been discussing the
possibility of scoring. There was some more'. discussion over the surface
treatment of the pre -cast cement. Mr. Fine asked what would be.put in.place,
of the sign board. Mr. Francis stated that they were planning to use some
type, of cement or plaster panel which would be painted to match 'the building.
Mr.. Oxian asked -how much the proposed three bay marquee is going to cost.
Mrs. Hickey stated that it is going to,cost $300,000.00. Mr: Oxian asked how
much:it would cost to make it a five bay marquee., Mrs. Hickey stated that it.
would cost $600,000.00. Mr. Fine stated that' the project -was a good one and
that. the. design was appropriate. Mr. Oxian thanked them for the presentation.
V. Announcements & Miscellaneous Matters
Mr. Oxian asked Mr. Duvall about proposing the Forbes Building, the Tailor's
` building and or the Credit'Union Building on Colfax as Landmarks. Mr. Duvall
stated that' the Tailor's. building would passin a minute. Mr. Fine suggest
having -the Singer Building Landmarked. Mr. Oxian stated that he was currently
going after the JMS Building and that.if Mr. Fine wanted to include'the Singer
Building then he would go after that too. Mr._' Oxian stated that Mr. Duvall -
should look into landmarking those buildings. There was some discussion over
the,tailor building.
IX._Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
4
Responses to Phone Votes
2/18/98
Ihsue 1 - Upgrade 911 Golden and 214 W. Jefferson from Contributing ratings int the
Indiana Historic Sites and Structures Inventory to Significant 11s.
Votes - Catherine Hostetler= yes Janeanne Petrass=>=yes Joann Sporleder=nabstained do
to absense
Ed Talley= yes John Borkowski= yes Jerry Weiner= yes
Martha Choitz= abstained do to absence
Issue 2 - Adrian Eine put forth a motion to have the Commission support any efforts
to list 214 W. Jefferson on the State Register as well as the National
Register as both most likely having integrity and significance necessary
for such a listing.
Votes - Catherine Hostetler= yes Janeanne Petrass= yes Joann Sporleder= abstained do to
absence
Ed Talley= yes John Borkwoski= yes Jerry Weiner= yes
Martha Choitz= abstained do to absence
toq
M�: