HomeMy WebLinkAboutHistoric Preservation Commission Meeting Signed Minutes - July 15, 2019
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
OF SOUTH BEND AND ST. JOSEPH COUNTY
July 15th, 2019
13th Floor Conference Room
County – City Building
South Bend, IN 46601
I. CALL TO ORDER
Commission President Gelfman called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
Members of the Public Present:
Brendan Crumlish, 3215 Sugar Maple Road
Kurt Garner, 12954 6th Road, Plymouth, IN 46563
Sandy Martin, 24888 Old Cleveland Road
Tom Martin, 24888 Old Cleveland Road
Jim Nowicki, 1133 E Wayne Street South
Phil St. Clair 1316 Hampshire Drive
Wendell Simmons, 124 N 2nd Street, Cassopolis, Michigan
II. ROLL CALL
Members Present: Michele Gelfman, President; Elizabeth Hertel, Vice President; Joseph
Molnar, Treasurer; Sarah Ponder, Secretary; Mary Brazinsky.
Members Not in Attendance: Lesley Annis, Assistant Secretary; Eric Stalheim.
Staff Present: Elicia Feasel, Historic Preservation Administrator; Adam Toering, Historic
Preservation Specialist; Steve Szaday, Historic Preservation Inspector; Sandra Kennedy,
Legal Counsel.
Staff Not in Attendance: N/A
III. PUBLIC HEARING
A. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
1. 1133 E Wayne COA# 2019-0603A - CONTINUED #7796-87 East
Wayne Local District
Representation: Wendell Simmons, 124 N 2nd Street, Cassopolis, Michigan
Jim Nowicki, 1133 East Wayne Street
STAFF REPORT
CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR A
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
Date: June 5, 2019
Application Number: 2019-0603A
Property Location: 1133 East Wayne Street
Architectural Style/Date/Architect or Builder: Colonial Revival/1938/Toepp House
Property Owner: Jim Nowicki
Landmark or District Designation: East Wayne Street, Ordinance #7796-87
Rating: Contributing
DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURE/ SITE: Two story house with rectangular plan. Roof is side gable with returns and
asbestos shingles (although survey card lists asphalt). Windows are primarily original wood 8/8 double hung at first floor, 6 /6 at
second floor, with ornamental louvered shutters. There is a central arched entry with fluted pilasters. Façade is painted brick.
ALTERATIONS: RME 2011-0921A removed one dead/dying Green Ash in tree lawn per Permit #197 requiring replacement
tree.
APPLICATION ITEMS: “Replacement of the asbestos tile roof and galvanized gutters with the Classic Products Oxford
metal shingle and new galvanized gutters”
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT: Contractor has applied to install new Oxford metal shingle over existing
asbestos tile roof, and to install new galvanized half round gutters.
While the 81-year-old roof has been maintained over the years, Slatile Roofing and Sheet Metal Co., Inc. and Pr eservation
Inspector have concluded that the asbestos shingle roof is failing and may be considered beyond repair at this point, please see
respective letters for details.
Slatile has proposed to install a metal shingle style roof system that would allow for the asbestos to remain installed on the
house. Per the contractor, the main reason for not removing the asbestos is to eliminate the hazard of asbestos particles
becoming airborne during demolition and the possibility of becoming a health hazard to the neighborhood. Another reason is the
cost of the removal and special considerations needed in disposal, both of which result in a higher cost. Staff advocates for
removal of asbestos prior to installing a new roof product to eliminate a potentially hazardous material from existing on the
house and to remedy any moisture concerns related to the vegetation growing in or behind the asbestos tile. Regarding the
proposed metal roof, this particular product is not commonly found in historic districts but would simulate a tile scale, texture,
and pattern.
At the June 17, 2019 meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission continued the application requesting from the petitioner
that at the next meeting they return with numbers on how much the asbestos removal would cost, and then how much it would
cost to remove with the installation of the asphalt architectural shingles, and then how much this project would cost with th e
containment metal material, and then also that the homeowner please be present.
Requested items have been provided by the contractor; the following is a summary:
1. (Application Item) Installation of the Classic Products Oxford aluminum panels over the existing asbestos t ile roof
$79,275.00
2. Complete tear off of the existing asbestos tile roof and installation of the Classic Products Oxford aluminum panels
$110,250.00
3. Complete tear off of the existing asbestos tile roof and installation of the Certainteed Landmark architectural shingles
$80,220.00
In reaction to thoughtful discussion from the June meeting, Staff contacted the Indiana Department of Environmental
Management, South Bend Building Department, and St. Joseph County Health Department to discover that there is no
requirement for removal of residential asbestos roofs and that installing a roof system over top asbestos material is allowed .
The proposed gutters are in – kind.
PRESERVATION INSPECTOR REPORT:
On June 6, 2019 I met with Wendell Simmons from Slatile and Preservation Specialist Adam Toering at the property located at
1133 E Wayne N part of the East Wayne Local Historic District.
The owner has applied (through the contractor) to cover the existing asbestos shingles with a substrate membrane then finish
with aluminum asbestos looking aluminum roof tiles. The step flashing at the chimneys will have to replaced with a taller
version, and the distinctive half-round gutters will also have to be removed and rehung.
There are missing or broken tiles in several locations. The owners and contractors have been using up a stockpile of matching
tiles, but now that supply has been depleted. Patches of moss are everywhere on all sides of the roof. This would suggest tha t the
existing underlayment under the asbestos tiles has failed so far as to allow moisture to pool. Not to mention the extra weight.
The moss will need to be removed and the areas washed to prevent regrowth.
In a previous application for 1105 E Wayne where asbestos tiles were present, the roofing had been removed, properly disposed
of, and a new underlayment and roof material then installed. I am aware that there are additional costs, but the removal of t he
asbestos tiles is the only permanent solution. The new underlayment is to be installed with screws and washers through the
existing asbestos tiles and underlayment. I would question leaving failed material in place rather than removing it.
Steve Szaday
Preservation Inspector
STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES: EAST WAYNE STREET
II. EXISTING STRUCTURES
B. ROOFS AND ROOFING
Roof shapes in the district encompass most of the various designs found in residential structures. Roofs
are covered with a variety of materials such as asphalt, asbestos, wood, and slate shingles, as well
as clay tiles. Residences in most cases have wood fascias with gutters and downspouts. The facias of
some vinyl or metal sided houses are covered with the same material.
Required
The existing shape and materials of the roof shall be retained. All architectural features which
give the roof its essential character shall be retained, including dormer windows, cupolas,
cornices, brackets, chimneys, cresting and weather vanes.
Recommended
Whenever possible, the original shape and materials of the roof shall be restored. Particular effort
should be made to retain materials such as slate, tile, and other unique materials not commonly found
in new construction. Roof covering which is deteriorated beyond repair should be replaced with
new material that matches as closely as possible the original in composition, size, shape, color and
texture. Gutters and downspouts are often a necessary adjunct in order to prevent deterioration
of the structure; they should be maintained whenever possible or replaced with a style
comparable and suitable to the architectural period.
Prohibited
Nothing shall be done to change the essential character of the roof as viewed from the thoroughfare by
adding architectural features or large unsightly fixtures, or by using materials inappropriate to the style
of the house. The roof shall not be stripped of architectural features important to its character.
Not Recommended
Overhanging eaves, soffits, brackets and gables should not be covered or enclosed when adding metal
or vinyl siding to a building.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval.
Report compiled by
Elicia Feasel, Historic Preservation Administrator
Administrator Feasel explained the reasoning behind the change in recommendation as due to research conducted by Staff into
the appropriate way to handle asbestos roofing, as well as the received material from the applicant.
PETITIONER COMMENTS: N/A
COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Brazinsky explained that, based upon the Staff report, she was prepared to approve the application.
Commissioner Ponder wanted clarification regarding the finish and trim work of the new metal roof.
Mr. Simmons provided details regarding the current configuration of the roof, and how the new product would be installed,
conveying that the new edge metal would be bent to replicate the concave crown molding by hand. The gutters would
cover most of the fascia.
Commissioner Hertel asked for clarification regarding the appearance of the proposed options. The homeowner has not
specified a particular manufacturer of the architectural shingles. Commissioner Hertel asked for examples regarding
the appropriateness of the roof with the metal roof. Discussion resulted regarding different roof options that mimic
asbestos roof material.
Mr. Simmons discussed a concrete tile option, which is ¾” thick, versus the 3/8” option that is being discussed.
Commissioner Hertel asked the petitioner if he was ok with living in a structure that would have asbestos material covered, w ith
concern for the long term lifespan of the roof.
Mr. Nowicki stated that there was only one person living in the house – him – and he was ‘ok’ with it.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION: N/A
Commissioner Brazinsky made a motion to approve COA #2019-0603A. Seconded by
Commissioner Ponder.
Four in favor, one opposed.
Vote: 4 – 1. Motion to approve COA #2019-0603A is passed.
Application #2019-0603A is approved.
2. 24888 Old Cleveland COA# 2019-0628A #55-1975 St. Joseph County
Local Landmark
Representation: Sandra Martin, 24888 Old Cleveland Road, South Bend, IN
Tom Martin, 24888 Old Cleveland Road, South Bend, IN
STAFF REPORT
CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR A
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
Date: July 11, 2019
Application Number: 2019-0628A
Property Location: 24888 Cleveland Road
Architectural Style/Date/Architect or Builder: Greek Revival / 1850~1870 / “Aaron N. Miller Farm”
Property Owner: Thomas and Sandra Martin
Landmark or District Designation: Local Landmark, Ordinance #55-1975
Rating: Outstanding
DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURE/SITE: The site of the Local Landmark at 24888 Old Cleveland Road originally
comprised 32.70 acres encompassing the historic Aaron N. Miller farm. The property has been subsequently subdivided into
two parcels: the Miller farmstead is now included in a 10 acre rectangular tract of land (tax key #04-1020-0328, owned by
Thomas and Sandra Martin), while the remainder of the landmarked property is on an irregular parcel of land comprising 22.70
acres (tax key #04-1020-032802, owned by James and Barbara Kidder). The terrain is rolling and includes what is rumored to
be the highest point in German Township. The majority of the original 32.70 acres is wooded.
The circa 1855 t-plan house with later additions sits closest to Old Cleveland Road, with the barn and four ancillary agricultural
buildings to the south, including the visually prominent multi-story barn built into the rising topography. The ancillary farm
buildings have board-and-batten exterior walls and are sited on fieldstone foundations.
To the west of the farmstead is a section of land that has low brush and is concealed from Old Cleveland Road by an
approximately 50’ deep grove of trees running parallel to the road. South of this grove of trees are fenced enclosures for the
horses and garden patches. A natural draw (draining towards Old Cleveland Road) separates this land from the main farmstead
area. This terrain rises to the south and west, before cresting and falling away beyond the property boundary. The 1875 St.
Joseph County Atlas image of the A. N. Miller farm shows a three-story barn stood on this western plot.
The area across Old Cleveland Road to the north has been extensively developed into industrial warehouses and distribution
centers.
ALTERATIONS: A previous multi-story barn was removed prior to 1900. COA #1994-0321 allowed for the replacement of
the pea gravel driveway with one of paving brick. COA #1996 -0319 allowed for the construction of a wood board fence as
indicated in the 1875 atlas image.
APPLICATION ITEMS: “150 x 60 Riding Arena and workshop on the west side of our property. Need horse stalls tall
enough for horses. Present historic barn has low ceilings on ground level. Horses hit heads on lights. Will provide
landscaping and trees (apple, pine, flowering). Color will be grey to blend with house.”
From previous e-mail correspondence:
“The building will be 14 feet tall, 150 x 60. Color will be gray with white trim, steel construction. Windows will be standar d
size, with mutton’s similar to house, white trim, like the house. Yes, we will have a concrete footer, and foundation in part of the
building but certainly not in the riding arena. The design will be as drawn, the main purpose is an indoor riding arena, and
needs to be a large open building. We do not have manufacture specs, they build to our needs, will try to get something before
the meeting. Would like to get this project started to use it as intended, for riding and training my Ponies to pull a cart i n a safe
confined area. Please let me know when the meeting is so we can plan to attend, and we will be able to address any additional
concerns at that time.”
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT: Applicant seeks a Certificate of Appropriateness for the construction of a 150’
x 60’ enclosed riding arena and workshop area. The structure would be sited on the western portion of the Martin’s parcel,
parallel to the street, concealed by landscaping, and built into the topography as it rises to the west. The erection of the structure
would be executed by AERS Construction of Wolcottville, IN, who specialize in building metal farm buildings.
The applicant provided an approximation of the design for the structure in 2018. The project was reviewed by the Commission
in June of 2018. Staff put forth the following recommendation at that time:
Staff recommends that the project be given a preliminary approval (indicating support for the overall concept o f
constructing a new structure at the proposed site) with the following conditions:
1) That the applicant would…
a. engage a licensed architect to prepare a comprehensive site plan for the grounds around the
proposed structure, detailing new paths and plantings to ensure that the structure remains
obscured from the main farmstead and street,
b. consider taking design cues from the extant historical record of the previous structure that
stood at this site and attempt to include / replicate those features in the new structure,
c. finalize construction plans for the structure, including materials (fixtures, windows, doors,
roof, and foundation).
2) Having prepared this new information, the applicant would return to the Historic Preservation
Commission and present their completed construction and site plan for final approval.
Following public discussion and deliberation, the following motion for conditional approval was made:
Commissioner Molnar made a motion as recommended by staff, but striking the line requiring a licensed
architect, but requesting that a comprehensive site plan be created for the project. Seconded by Commissioner
Bonham.
Vote: 5 – 0 Motion to approve COA#2018-0608 as amended is passed.
Commissioner Fisher made a motion to wave the reapplication fee. Seconded by Commissioner Bonham.
Five in favor, none opposed.
Vote: 5 – 0 Motion to wave the reapplication fee is passed.
Foliage and tree cover will be removed to facilitate construction. This will be replaced to shield the structure from the street
following completion.
Windows will be six-over-six to complement the house. Steel doors will be present on the South and East sides, including a
garage door (replicating the style of the garage door on the house).
SITE VISIT REPORT:
Historic Preservation Specialist Adam Toering and Historic Preservation Inspector Steve Szaday made a site visit on Monday,
June 4th 2018 to discuss the project and survey the proposed area. Both staff members expressed concern to the property owner
regarding the lack of information in the application, and fear that the project may be received unfavorably by the Commission .
The property owner expressed the desire to continue with the application after hearing the concerns of both Historic
Preservation staff members.
STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES: Local Landmark Group B
The Commission has the authority to determine the architectural merits and the extent of any proposed treatment, renovation, or
addition to a historic landmark. The commission will require drawings, plans, specifications, and/or samples where appropriate.
A. Maintenance
The maintenance of any historical structure or site shall in no way involve any direct physical change except for the general
cleaning and upkeep of the landmark. The Commission shall encourage the proper maintenance of all structure or sites.
B. Treatment
Treatment shall be defined as any change of surface materials that will not alter the style or original form. Such improvements
include re-roofing, glazing, or landscaping lawns and may involve a change that can potentially enhance or detract from the
character of the landmark. A treatment change of any surface whether on the landmark or in its environment may require a
Certificate of Appropriateness if it significantly alters the appearance of the landmark. Although these kinds of changes ma y
not require a Building Permit, a Certificate of Appropriateness may be necessary. The commission should review the proposed
treatment for character and style consistency with the original surfaces.
C. Renovation and Additions
Renovation is the modification of a structure, which does not alter the general massing while an ad dition, is a change in mass.
A modification, which involves the removal of a part of the landmark, should be considered under demolition (see demolition).
Additions to landmarks should not detract from the original form and unity of the landmark and shou ld not cover
singular examples of architectural detail. Additions to landmarks should be added in a manner that does not disrupt the
visible unity of overall appearance of the site. The proportions, materials and ratios of the existing structures should be
carried through in the additions. Care should be taken not to change or alter the following:
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. Material—Additions and improvements involving any new material in the landmark should be of 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.
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.
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.
E. Moving
The moving of landmarks is discouraged, however, moving is preferred to demolition. When moving is necessary, the owner of
the landmark must apply to the Commission for a Certificate of Appropriateness.
F. Signs
No neon or flashing signs will be permitted unless they are original to the structure. Billboards and super-graphics will also be
disallowed. Only one appropriate identifying sign will be permitted per business.
G. Building Site and Landscaping
(These standards apply to both A and B)
1. Required
Major landscaping items, trees, fencing, walkways, private yard lights, signs (house numbers) and benches
which reflect the property’s history and development shall be retained. Dominant land contours shall be
retained. Structures such as: gazebos, patio decks, fixed barbecue pits, swimming pools, tennis courts, green
houses, new walls, fountains, fixed garden furniture, trellises, and other similar structures shall be compatible
to the historic character of the site and neighborhood and inconspicuous when viewed from a public way.
2. Recommended
New site work should be based upon actual knowledge of the past appearance of the property found in
photographs, drawings, and newspapers. Plant materials and trees in close proximity to the buildin g that are
causing deterioration to the buildings historic fabric should be removed. However, trees and plant materials
that must be removed should be immediately replaced by suitable flora. Front yard areas should not be fenced
except in cases where historic documentation would indicate such fencing appropriate. Fencing should be in
character with the buildings style, materials, and scale.
3. Prohibited
No changes may be made to the appearance of the site by removing major landscaping items, trees, fencing,
walkways, outbuildings, and other elements before evaluating their importance to the property’s history and
development. Front yard areas shall not be transformed into parking lots nor paved nor blacktopped. The installation
of unsightly devices such as TV reception dishes and solar collectors shall not be permitted in areas where they can be
viewed from public thoroughfares.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff approves of the construction of the new ancillary barn structure.
Were there any concerns by the Commission as to the particulars of the structure, Staff would request
those concerns be remanded to staff for later approval as details become available.
Written by
Adam Toering
Historic Preservation Specialist
Approved by
Elicia Feasel
Historic Preservation Administrator
PETITIONER COMMENTS:
Ms. Martin explained that the original proposed design has been altered: the footprint has been changed from 150’ x 60’, it h as
been shortened to 130’ x 72’.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Gelfman asked for clarification regarding construction of a metal barn versus building a wooden barn.
Mr. and Ms. Martin spoke of cost being the primary obstacle.
Commissioenr Gelfman asked for clarification of the Landmark ordinance. Staff explained that multiple parcels were included
in the Landmark ordinance, and that the Martins own one parcel, approximately 10 acres.
Commissioner Brazinsky asked for clarification as to the location of the other farm structures. Staff indicated on aerial imagery
and photographs where the structures are, and where the proposed structure would be constructed.
Commissioner Molnar commented on how this may actually increase the desirability of the property, as it will add a structure
that can be utilized actively.
Ms. Martin corroborated this sentiment, stating that adding historic structures take a lot of work to maintain, and that the
existing barn was a cow barn.
Commissioner Hertel asked if this would compromise the Outstanding rating of the property.
Administrator Feasel responded in the negative, that nothing was being taken away from the original structures on the site. The
new structure would be a non-contributing structure on the property, and it could be reversed or removed. It is not
compromising any of the structures.
Ms. Martin stated that that was why they placed the structure to the west.
Commissioner Hertel stated that she was happy to see the structure shielded from the main farmstead by the line of vegetation .
Mr. Martin joked that they didn’t want to see it, either.
Commission discussion occurred on the proposed windows, resulting in the position that 6-over-6 aluminum-clad windows were
preferred.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION: N/A
Commissioner Brazinsky made a motion to approve COA#2019-0628A with aluminum
clad-wood windows (six-over-six). Seconded by Commissioner Hertel.
Five in favor, none opposed.
Vote: 5 – 0. Motion to approve COA #2019-0628A is passed.
3. 201 W North Shore #2019-0701 #6512-78 West North Shore
Local Historic District
Representation: John Broden, 201 W North Shore Drive
Jo Broden, 201 W North Shore Drive
Gary Hershberger, 63146 M 62, Cassopolis, MI
STAFF REPORT
CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR A
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
Date: July 11, 2019
Application Number: 2019-0701
Property Location: 201 W North Shore
Architectural Style/Date/Architect or Builder: Neo-Classical / 1906 / Rider House
Property Owner: Thomas and Joann Broden
Landmark or District Designation: West North Shore Local Historic District, Ordinance #6512-78
Rating: Notable
DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURE/ SITE: Two story (plus attic) Neo-Classical structure has a square plan on a brick
foundation. Multiple later additions add to the footprint of the structure, specifically a sleeping porch and bay window at the
northwest and southwest corners, respectively. Two non-symmetrically located chimneys punctuate the roofline. Aluminum
siding covers the exterior, although exposed wood remains on the recent additions. The mai n façade entry porch has paired
Corinthian columns supporting a large bracketed and dentilled pediment with a fan lite on the transom into an attic space of the
third story. Two additional Corinthian piers engage the façade. The front entrance is a doubl e-leaf wood panel door with single
pane side and transom. Windows are wood double hung throughout. The flat-roofed porte cochere is supported by smaller
Corinthian columns.
A two story Queen Anne style rectangular carriage house on a concrete foundation is northeast of the main structure. The
structure has multi-paned casement windows as well as double-hung windows flanking the primary car door. Two front
entrances for carriages or cars are double leaf wooden doors with multipaned windows. The central door has a small roof
canopy with a gable and large brackets.
ALTERATIONS: A sleeping porch and bay window are later additions. COA 1987-0610 allowed for the replacement of the
curved concrete sidewalk from the base of the steps to the street. COA 1989-0908 allowed for the removal of a dead sugar
maple tree from the east side of the front yard. COA 1997-1027 allowed for the installation of ornamental iron railings on the
terrace steps along with light fixtures. COA 1999-1101 allowed for the replacement of the driveway with new concrete. COA
2002-0916 allowed for re-roofing with “3 & 1 style black fiberglass shingles.” COA 2002-1017 allowed for the replacement of
the copper half-round gutters with new 5” galvanized gutters and downspouts. RME 2012-0503 allowed for the removal of 2
rotten columns at car port and subsequent replacement with ‘Endura-Stone’ composite columns from Pacific Column Company.
RME 2016-1213 allowed for soffit repair work, re-roof of internal gutters and flat roof work. RME 2017-1106 allowed for the
removal and later replacement of multiple trees on property in advance of later projects. COA 2018 -0314 allowed for the
demolition and reconstruction of the front porch, including the pillars.
APPLICATION ITEMS: “Owners are seeking 1) A reduction in size of overall porch at the property – 2) elimination of non-
functioning / non-code staircase extending off the port-cochere – it was designed solely for horse drawn carriages and not for
cars; 3) Reduction in columns from 4 to 2 on front of house – 2 of 4 columns (inner columns) are non-load bearing –
nonstructural; 4) Replace fluted style columns to cylinder and replace wood constructed columns which failed due to exposure
to elements and freezing and thawing to a more durable composite material.”
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT:
Applicant seeks approval for the following four project components:
1. Reduction in the overall size of the wrap-around porch on the south and east faces of the structure. The main entrance
porch and the porte-cochère porch have been built.
a. Historic Precedent:
The 1932 Assessor Card for the property indicates that the original porch did not extend across the entire
front façade, nor did it connect to the porte-cochère. Evidence that the wrap-around porch may have been
added a later date were first encountered by Staff at a follow-up site visit in summer / fall 2018, where the
deconstructed porch unveiled windows to the basement.
b. Configuration / Constitution:
The reconstructed entrance portico and porte-cochère are clad in red brick (as the entire porch had been
before). The removed porch unveiled ‘yellow’ brick as the primary construction medium for the main
structure. It is the intention of the property owner to keep this brick, as-is. This will result in two distinct
colors of bricks being visible on the front façade of the structure.
The overall cost of reconstructing the porch in the most recent configuration should be noted. Reducing the
overall size of the porch allows the property owner to address other (potentially more pressing) maintenance
concerns.
Staff supports the reduction in size of the porch. Staff would prefer to see either the yellow or the red
brick used continuously across the entirety of the structure.
2. Elimination / Removal of the Port-cochere stairs.
a. Historical Context:
The porte-cochère originally allowed for a covered area for visitors to arrive at the house under cover from
the elements. The steps that were previously installed in the porte-cochère were narrow, on the face of the
porch wall, rising to the north, and staff believes these steps were not the original steps to enter the house
from the porte-cochère. Staff is of the opinion that the screened-in porch portion was originally constructed
with a smaller footprint, and was changed sometime prior to 1950 (as evidenced by the 1932 Assessor Card
cubed representation).
Porte-cochère projects that the Commission has reviewed recently include the Kizer House, where most
recently the Commission allowed the porte-cochère stairs to be removed to allowed for additional
construction projects and more thoughtful use of the existing space.
b. Configuration / Constitution:
The removal of the steps will allow for the the porte-cochère to be safely used as a pass-through for
automobiles to the rear of the house (currently cars drive around the porte-cochère). The screened-in porch
is still serviced by a larger stair on the north side of the porch area.
Staff supports the removal of porte-cochère stairs.
3. Reduction in the number of columns on the front porch from four to two.
a. Historical Context:
Columns, composed of the base, shaft, and capital, are categorized in five orders: Doric, Ionic, Tuscan,
Corinthian, and Composite. The latter two are the most ornate of the orders.
Four stately homes along West North Shore have grand entrance porticos with colossal orders (columns
taller than one story):
i. 107 West North Shore, with two Composite* columns; (* Composite columns are an elaboration
of the Corinthian style with the addition of the volutes of the Ionic columns)
ii. 127 W North Shore, with 6 Ionic columns (four facing the street) and pilasters along each exterior
facade;
iii. 201 W North Shore with 4 Corinthian columns and two pilasters;
iv. 325 W North Shore, with six Ionic columns (four facing the street) on the front porch
The applicant’s house is the only structure in the neighborhood with Corinthian columns. Three of the
above listed examples have four columns facing the street, and these three structures are similar in
appearance and architectural constitution.
b. Configuration / Constitution:
The two columns at the corners of the portico were load-bearing. The internal columns were cosmetic,
adding to the stately appearance of the house. The columns (and pilasters) have fluted shafts. The capitals
are Corinthian, with acanthi and volutes.
The reconstruction cost is believed to be in excess of $5,000 per column. The reduction in the number of
columns will result in a considerable cost-savings for the applicant (in excess of $10,000).
Staff does not support the reduction in the number of columns.
4. Change the material Construction of the Columns
a. Historic Context:
The existing columns were originally constructed from multiple materials. The 2018 application to repair /
rebuild the front porch was predicated on the deteriorated condition of the columns (base, shaft, and capital).
The shafts were constructed from wood, barreled around an internal cavity. New load -bearing beams have
been installed at the corners, it was the hope of the applicant that the barreled columns could be rehabilitated
and reinstalled.
The 2018 project approval remanded to staff “decisions where contingencies exist or any decisions that need
to be acted upon with urgency, including the replacement and reconstruction of the Corinthian columns and
piers..”
b. Configuration / Constitution:
The applicant would like to transition from the original materials to fiberglass reinforced polymer exampl es.
The applicant has requested to remove the fluting from the columns.
Staff supports the use of alternative materials if they replicate the original details of the Corinthian
columns and pilasters. Staff does not support a ‘regression’ in the style of the columns (i.e., the loss of
the fluting on the shaft of the column, or the installation of a less ornate capital order).
SITE VISIT REPORT:
Staff visited the property repeatedly over the course of the last calendar year (March, August, September, of 2018, as well as
January, March, and June of 2019) to monitor progress on the project. On June 27, 2019 Inspector Szaday and Specialist
Toering met with a representative (Jo Broden) of the property owners at the residence and discussed developments and
circumstances of the project. The representative of the property owner expressed frustrations with the concrete contractor and
the overall cost and progress of the project. The installation of the front steps was not to her satisfaction.
The front porch is poured, and the steps have been installed. Hershberger Masonry is working on finishing the exterior brick of
this portion of the project. Steel beams are installed at the corners to support the porch roof.
STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES:
I. BASIC STRUCTURAL MATERIALS AND ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES
Preferred: Retain and maintain the original exterior building material.
Frame Structures: Repair, repaint, and / or clean siding to deter deterioration.
Masonry Structures: Tuckpoint brick and stone, repair stucco and repaint trim, stucco and brick (if painted) to deter
deterioration. Retain and maintain architectural detail of structures such as wrought iron, tile, brackets, etc., or replace when
necessary with similar material in texture, size and appearance.
Permitted: If vinyl or aluminum siding is the only economic solution to a deteriorating frame house, architectural detail must
be visually preserved. The siding used should match the original in style, width, and lap as closely as possible.
Prohibited: Do not use asbestos or asphalt siding on frame structures. Do not use artificial brick or cast stone siding on brick,
masonry, stucco, or frame structures. Do not sandblast or use harsh detergents in cleaning brick, masonry or stucco.
II. STRUCTURES
A. ROOFS
Preferred: Keep the original shape of the roof. Retain the original roofing material. A special effort should be made to do this
when the roof in question is of tile, slate, or some other unique material not usually found today. Preserv e or replace all
architectural features which give the roof its character, such as dormer windows, cupolas, cornices, brackets, chimneys, cres ting,
weathervanes, and special eaves.
Permitted: When necessary to replace roofing material, match the original as closely as possible in size, shape and texture.
Prohibited: Do not add, remove, or alter features which will change its character or the architectural character of the house.
C. PORCHES AND STEPS WHICH ARE READILY VISIBLE FROM THE STREET
Preferred: Retain and maintain porches and steps including hand rails, balusters, columns, brackets, roof decoration, tile, and
brick. If porches and / or steps are enclosed for heat conservation or other reasons, it should be done in a manner that doe s not
destroy the architectural nor historical character of the home.
Permitted: Replace porches and steps with materials matching the original as closely as possible. A cement porch floor is
permitted for the structure on Lot 12.
Prohibited: Porches and steps that are appropriate to the style of the house shall not be removed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff divides the project into four components:
1. Staff supports the reduction in size of the porch. Staff would prefer to see either the yellow
or the red brick used continuously across the entirety of the structure.
2. Staff supports the removal of the porte-cochère stairs.
3. Staff does not support the reduction in the number of columns.
4. Staff supports the use of alternative materials if they replicate the original details of the
Corinthian columns and pilasters. Staff does not support a ‘regression’ in the style of the
columns (i.e., the loss of the fluting on the shaft of the column, or the installation of a less
ornate capital order.)
Written by
Adam Toering
Historic Preservation Specialist
Approved by
Elicia Feasel
Historic Preservation Administrator
PETITIONER COMMENTS:
Mr. John Broden explained that he is power-of-attorney for his parents who own the property and currently live in the carriage
house, that he and his wife live in the main house, that some of the justifications for the proposed work is based on the
cost of the overall project, and is understanding of the position s of the staff and the Commission.
Ms. Jo Broden explained that this application is one of many on the house, and that many of those projects are derived from
differed maintenance. Ms. Broden further explained that the yellow and red brick and use of both, and how they had
hoped to conceal some of the differences between two colors with landscaping.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Molnar clarified his positions supporting the staff recommendations. He further revealed that he works for the
Clerks Office in close cooperation with Councilwoman Broden, and that he is appreciative of the efforts of the family
to attempt to tackle this project.
Commissioner Hertel asked for clarification on whether this project was retroactive or not.
Specialist Toering explained the expiration of the previous approval from 2018.
Commissioner Hertel supported the various elements of the project but had reservations regarding the removal of two of the
columns.
Specialist Toering explained that the previous approval had given staff the authority to approve material changes for the pillars,
as it was an exploratory deconstruction.
Commissioner Brazinsky stated that she could support the removal of the pillars were the porch only one story tall, b ut since
they are two stories, it doesn’t work.
Commissioner Ponder agreed with the staff recommendation.
Commissioner Molnar stated that he had concerns regarding the precedent that could be established with allowing the removal
of pillars in future cases.
Ms. Broden expressed that this application (for removing two of the pillars) is an ask for now, and not forever. From an
engineering standpoint, the outside two columns are load-bearing. It is their hope that the two other pillars could be
added in at a later date.
Commissioner Hertel asked if removing two of the pillars would allow for executing other projects on the house.
Ms. Broden stated that this is absolutely the case.
Commissioner Hertel asked what kind of time-frame this project is looking at.
Ms. Broden stated that this is a multi-year project, and she was surprised to discover that the Historic Preservation
Commission’s Certificate was only a one-year approval, as opposed to the Building Department’s two-year permit.
She acknowledged that the original ‘ask’ of this project may have been too grand. Ms. Broden then spoke about the
construction of the replacement pillars, and how they can be fabricated at a later date to match the to -be-installed
components.
Mr. Broden spoke to the financials that limit the estate’s position on executing the projects on the property.
Commissioner Molnar asked for clarification from Legal Counsel regarding the duration of Certificates of Appropriateness.
Legal Counsel Kennedy clarified that the duration of the Certificates of Appropriateness is established in the enabling
ordinance. Individuals projects could be renewed, repeatedly.
Commissioner Hertel wanted clarification as to what sort of time schedule would work for the re-installation of the two
additional columns; before the petitioner could provide a time frame, Commissioner Hertel explained that were the
project not completed in the next year, that the applicant could apply for an extension, again.
Commissioner Gelfman clarified that Mr. Broden had mentioned that he had some desire to remove the internal pillars
permanently, but that option was “off the table” to the Commission.
Mr. Broden stated that he understood.
Commissioner Molnar asked about the construction of the columns.
Specialist Toering clarified that the previous approval allowed for contingencies including material change.
Commissioner Gelfman expressed concern that, were a new owner to purchase the property before the two internal columns are
installed, and the new owner didn’t want to install the columns, that the Commission would have little recourse.
Commissioner Brazinsky stated that it could be included in the closing (sale) documents, contingent upon those columns.
Legal Counsel Kennedy explained that we could ask the current prop erty owner to do that, but the Commission would have no
legal way of requiring them to do so.
Commissioner Molnar explained that the COA would still be active, and in place.
Legal Counsel Kennedy responded that the COA would not be discoverable on a title -search or otherwise.
Specialist Toering re-read the motion and approval from the 2018 application, clarifying the staff approval authority.
Mr. Broden explained that, were the house be sold within the next year, the house would be sold with four columns, a s there
would be sufficient monies to pay for their installation and his siblings would support him in that position.
Commissioner Hertel asked about the manufacture of the columns, were they installed at different times.
Specialist Toering explained that the manufacturers are established, and that the products are cast.
Ms. Broden explained that the pillars come unfinished, and need to be painted.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION: N/A
Commissioner Hertel made a motion to approve COA #2019-0701, section 1, the reduction
in size of the wrap-around porch. Seconded by Commissioner Molnar.
Five in favor, none opposed.
Vote: 5 – 0. Motion to approve COA #2019-0701, section 1, is passed.
Commissioner Ponder made a motion to approve COA #2019-0701, section 2, the removal
of the porte-cochère stairs. Seconded by Commissioner Hertel.
Five in favor, none opposed.
Vote: 5 – 0. Motion to approve COA #2019-0701, section 2, is passed.
Administrator Feasel requested clarification on the motion for section 1, regarding the brick color. The
motion remains as is.
Commissioner Molnar made a motion to approve COA #2019-0701, section 3, with the
alteration that the Commission intends for there to be four Corinthian colossal
columns in place where they were, but with the understanding that two may go
up first, and at a later date the second ‘inner’ columns may go up (within twelve
months), were that not possible, the applicant will come back for a re-application.
Were the property to be sold, four columns will be installed. Seconded by
Commissioner Brazinski.
Five in favor, none opposed.
Vote: 5 – 0. Motion to approve COA #2019-0701, section 3 (with conditions), is passed.
Commissioner Molnar made a motion to approve COA #2019-0701, section 4, the
replacement of the columns – with the clarification that the columns must
resemble the original removed columns (capital and shaft).
Five in favor, none opposed.
Vote: 5 – 0. Motion to approve COA #2019-0701 is passed.
Commissioner Molnar departed the proceedings at 6:41pm.
4. 629 Carroll #2019-0703A #8952-98 Taylor’s Field Local
Historic District
Representation: Brenden Crumlish, 3215 Sugar Maple Drive
Kurt Garner, 12954 6th Road, Plymouth, IN 46563
Phil St. Clair 1316 Hampshire Drive
STAFF REPORT
CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR A
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
}Date: July 3, 2019
Application Number: 2019-0703A
Property Location: 629 Carroll
Architectural Style/Date/Architect or Builder: Neo-Classical/1924
Property Owner: David Steinberg/Bingo Properties LLC
Landmark or District Designation: Taylors Field, Ordinance #8952-98
Rating: Contributing
DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURE/ SITE: Three story, rectangular plan, brick apartment building. Foundation is concrete.
Roof is flat with parapet wall. A central bay in front features an arched entrance with divided light transom above and a balcony
window with metal rail. Above the balcony is an entablature with “Carroll” cast in concrete. Windows are 6/1 and 1/1 double
hung, both original wood and multiple generations of wood and vinyl replacement. The lot is slightly elevated with a concrete
retaining wall.
ALTERATIONS: No COA on file. Some windows are replacement wood or vinyl. Entry doors are non-original metal.
APPLICATION ITEMS: “The 23-unit brick apartment building is currently vacant. Exterior work includes replacement of all
original 6/1 and 4/1 wood windows, and 1/1 replacement windows with vinyl replacement windows with muntins between the
glass, insulated 6/1 and 4/1 windows. Opening sizes will be approximately 2” smaller, and front transoms shall be covered with
storm units (fan lite, second floor). Front and back entries (non-historic metal and wood infill) shall be replaced with steel
panel style doors with top lites and matching side lites. New electric meters (30) shall be placed on north wall of c. 1960 block
addition (north façade) and bathroom vents shall be place through the masonry wall for each apartment unity (28). See
drawings.”
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT: Applicant seeks a Certificate of Appropriateness for the following exterior
work:
1. Replace windows:
The Carroll Apartment Building retains a number of its original of its 6/1 and 4/1 wood windows, however, they vary in
condition and deterioration. This is most evident by the number of full-replacements that have been made over the years.
Approximately 43 windows are later wood or vinyl replacement windows, or about one-third of the overall window count.
Several other original wood windows have broken sash members and are boarded over as the building sits vacant.
The application contends that replacement windows throughout the building will greatly improve energy efficiency,
safety/security, and provide a uniform appearance that the building has not had since it was first constructed in the 1920s. The
grille patterns of 4/1 and 6/1 will also be maintained, or in the case of where windows have already been replaced, be recreated
and appear more historical than the existing replacements.
While the sashes are not deteriorated beyond repair, the jambs and sills are in some instances. Staff recommends that the own er
engage a window restoration professional to determine the condition of the original windows and the feasibility for repair.
The proposed windows are Window World 4000 Series vinyl double hung windows with muntin pattern to be replicated using
grids in between the glass.
2. Replace doors:
Existing doors are non-original replacement. New steel panel doors and sidelites will provide a more historically-accurate
appearance to the building entries and will be more secure. Note no historic photos of the building have been located, so the
door designs are based on security and sympathetic to early 20th century design.
` Carroll Street Doors:
Pella Clad Wood 36" X 80" Entry Door, Frame Size: 38 1/4 X 81 7/16
Panel Style: Craftsman Light
Glass: Tempered Low-E Air Filled
Grilles: Simulated Divided Light, 1 5/8" Contour, Match Interior Panel Finish, Match Exterior Panel Finish, Tradition al,
Typical, 3, 1
Panel Selection: Hemlock, Painted, Putty, Painted, White
Frame Selection: Clad, Pine, Oak Threshold, No Panel Reinforcement, Standard Enduraclad, Putty, Wood, White
Door Sidelites
Pella 1280 Fixed Entry Door Sidelight (2), Frame Size: 14 1/4 X 81 7/16
Panel Style: Craftsman Light
Glass: Tempered Low-E Air Filled
Grilles: No Grille
Panel Selection: Hemlock, Painted, Putty, Painted, White
Frame Selection: Clad, Pine, Oak Threshold, No Panel Reinforcement, Standard Enduraclad, Putty, Wood, White
3. Install vents through façade:
Thru-wall bathroom vents, see elevation, will be painted sheet metal units, approximately 6" square, similar to those on the
brick facade of the historic LaSalle Hotel in downtown South Bend, see picture.
4. Install electric meters:
30 new meters to be placed on north wall of c. 1960 block addition (north façade).
PRESERVATION INSPECTOR REPORT:
First, I wish to provide some background for this property.
July 5, 2018 – Code hearing multiple apartments were ordered Vacate and Seal due to failure to complete necessary repairs.
February 5, 2019 – Code issues a Vacate and Seal on the entire property as the heating system has failed and the city deemed it
unsafe without heat.
February 7, 2019 – Code Hearing all occupants have been removed, new owners are working to replace HVAC system, remove
trash, and remove loose building material.
May 5, 2019 – I called Homeworks Property Management about a set of windows on the south side that were removed in order
to install a garbage shoot from the third to the dumpster. I received a call back from Homeworks, a gentleman named Troy from
a window manufacturer, and from Mr. St. Clair who is the owner’s local representative. I explained the COA process to each o f
them and tried to guide them on the next steps.
July 3, 2019 – An application was received by the HPC staff for windows and miscellaneous other work.
July 9, 2019, I met with the owner’s representative, Mr. St. Clair at 629 Carroll. This 28 -unit apartment building is
located within the Taylor’s Field Local Historic District. I photographed the exterior of the structure, each window on all three
floors, and the skylights.
38 non-original wood and vinyl windows exist. All original windows had multi-pane upper sashes.
I did not find any sashes that were deteriorated beyond repair. However, the main concerns with these windows are
the jambs and sills. The weight pockets are flat trim construction with the “sides” being used as the interior stop. The pl ay in the
sashes is quite severe and without the addition of an additional interior stop on each side and top, I do not see a feasible solution
for the air gap. I did not find a single set of windows that completely had ropes as most lower sashes were with out.
Secondly, the majority of the sills are dry-rotted or deteriorated beyond repair. Especially those closest to the northwest corner.
At least a dozen of the sills are soft enough to put my finger into.
I would ask that a clear plan on how replacements would be installed be presented. At the front of the building a bank of three
windows were replaced. The original jams were removed and the new windows were installed with a minor setback from the
brick face rather than centered in the frame. This left an interior “shelf” to compensate for the distance from exterior to interior
walls. See photograph #106. I fear that a centered installation would leave too much of the limestone sill exposed and result in
water infiltration though the walls.
Steve Szaday
Preservation Inspector
STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES: TAYLOR’S FIELD
II. EXISTING STRUCTURES
C. WINDOWS AND DOORS
Window and door frames are in most cases wood. Brick structures have stone sills and brick lintels. In some cases where
additional siding has been applied window trim has been covered. Many structures in the district have aluminum storm
windows. Some houses retain wood framed storm windows.
Required
Original windows and doors shall be retained including sashes, lintels, sills, shutters, decorative glass, pediments, hoods,
and hardware. When deteriorated beyond repair, they shall be replaced with units and trim resembling the original.
Recommended
Wood frame storm windows and doors painted to match the original should be used but should not damage existing frames and
should be removable. If new sashes or doors are installed, the existing or original materials, design, and hardware should
be used. When metal storm doors and windows are used, they should be painted, anodized or coated to match the existing.
When awnings are used they should be of canvas material.
Prohibited
Original doors, windows, and hardware shall not be discarded when they can be restored and re-used in place. New
window and door openings which would alter the scale and proportion of the building shall not be introduced.
Inappropriate new window and door features, such as aluminum insulating glass combinations that require the removal
of the original windows and doors, shall not be installed.
Not Recommended
Awnings, hoods, and fake shutters made of metal, vinyl, or fiberglass should not be used if they would detract from the exist ing
character or appearance of the building.
E. MECHANICAL SYSTEMS
The majority of the structures within the District have oil or gas heat, and have brick chimneys through the roof. Some houses
have one or two window air conditioners.
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. Solar collectors and TV dishes shall be placed at the rear of the property and shielded by
shrubbery and landscaping.
Recommended
Windows air conditioners and exhaust fans should be installed at the rear or at an inconspicuous side window. Original
lighting fixtures should be retained whenever possible.
Prohibited
Holes shall not be cut though walls or roofs to accommodate air conditioners or other mechanical equipment in areas
that can be seen from the street.
Not Recommended
Exterior electrical and telephone cables should not be attached to the principal elevation of the building.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that existing original windows that are not deteriorated beyond repair, be
retained and that windows that are deteriorated beyond repair and that existing replacement windows be replaced with units
resembling the original. As a contributing property in a historic district, and constructed of masonry, Staff does not recommend
the proposed Window World 4000 Series vinyl window. Staff recommends approval to replace doors, and to install vents and
electric meters.
Report compiled by
Elicia Feasel, Historic Preservation Administrator
Commissioner Molnar rejoined the proceedings at 6:45 pm.
PETITIONER COMMENTS:
Mr. Crumlish introduced the project, stating that they intend to create uniformity in the structure in the exterior appearance,
increase the energy efficiency, updating the electrical will require installing multiple exterior meters, and the
bathroom vents are a necessity for code.
Mr. St. Clair read a prepared letter from the property owners, Adam Sharp and David Steinberg, one lives in Florida and the
other in Carmel, IN, Adam has been very active at the property as the owner and has been at the property numerous
times.
“Good evening, we’d like to thank the Historic Preservation Commission for their attention and assistance regarding
the revitalization of the apartment building at 629 Carroll Street. We apologize that neither one of us is able to attend
this meeting in person. We are excited about this project and believe that it will act as a cornerstone tha t will
stimulate further investment and revitalization in the Taylor’s Field neighborhood. As you know, this building has
fallen into a state of severe disrepair and has been neglected for many years prior to our acquisition of the property in
November of 2018. We do feel strongly regarding preservation and the history and nature of the character of the
exterior of the building and have appreciated the Historic Preservation Commission’s assistance in insuring this is a
priority. It is worth noting that at no time during our acquisition of the building did the seller disclose to us that the
building was in a Historic District under any type of restrictions. We purchased this building commensurate with our
model of revitalizing older apartment buildings to provide safe, clean, and affordable housing to single or double
occupancy tenants. We believe that there is a severe shortage of this type of housing in many cities in Indiana. While
this is not our primary occupation–we are practicing physicians—we are both passionate about this endeavor and have
completed similar projects in Crawfordsville and Muncie, Indiana, over the last couple of years. Although we are
very committed to preserving the historical aspects of the building, the windows will all need to be replaced,
secondary to poor functioning and poor energy efficiency, it will be needed to install necessary safety features. We
currently selected a premium vinyl window that we have used in other projects that has proven to be both great quality
and compelling aesthetic appeal in those existing buildings. This window is available in a number of color options,
and we are asking for the Historic Preservation Commission to consider the vinyl replacement windows that will
enable us to meet all necessary criteria while ensuring that we will stay within our reno budget so as to best complete
the revitalization of the building. We look forward to providing safe, clean and affordable housing for the residents of
South Bend and hope to complete this project by the end of the first quarter of 2020, where we can once again
welcome new occupants to the building. It is our intention to continue to invest in South Bend and we look forward to
working with you in the future on additional projects. Your time and attention on this project is greatly appreciated.
We once again apologize for not being able to be present for this discussion in person. Respectfully, Adam Sharp and
David Steinberg.
Mr. Crumlish showed the proposed window.
Commissioner Gelfman asked for an assessment by Inspector Szaday of the window.
Inspector Szaday said that the sills and jams on the west side and south west side are compromised. Inspector Szaday conveyed
that a number of the windows have been replaced. The windows that do not have grids are later replacements. The
replacement windows are of varying qualities. Inspector Szaday discussed the location of a fire that affected
Mr. St. Clair explained that the entirety of the structure – inside and out – will be rehabilitated. Drywall, flooring, electrical,
plumbing. This project is in excess of seven figures, and is a big investment by the property owners.
Mr. Crumlish spoke about the extensive interior renovations and the desire of the property owner to instal l an electric heating
system to replace the gas boiler system that failed, leading to the eviction of all the previous tenants. The new system
will be redundant.
Commissioner Gelfman asked if the vinyl windows were the primary choice by Mr. Crumlish.
Mr. Crumlish explained that it was not his first selection, but he supports the project.
Inspector Szaday explained that the building was ordered ‘vacate and sealed’ by Code Enforcement because of the heating
issues.
COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Hertel expressed her disapproval of the proposed windows, voiced approval for the proposed door and venting.
She asked for clarification regarding the utility meter placement.
Mr. Crumlish explained that were they to restore the original windows, there would still be forty-plus replacement windows.
The applicant is attempting to create uniformity across the entirety of the building.
Mr. Crumlish clarified that the exterior location was selected as it is the utility portion of the building, an d it is alley-facing.
The utility company will not allow the meters to placed inside the structure. This cement block addition structure is a
later addition.
Mr. Garner stated that it would be better placed on this addition as opposed to attached to the original brick.
Commissioner Gelfman stated that the Commission has approved fiberglass windows.
Inspector Szaday clarified that the Commission has approved fiberglass, but it is unknown how they will hold up over time as of
yet.
Mr. Crumlish stated that the windows come in a number of different colors.
Commissioner Ponder illustrated that the original windows appear to have been a reddish color.
Commissioner Molnar noted that the Commission doesn’t have much information regarding the property’s history, and he is
understanding that the near neighborhood is in need of assistance. This project could provide a much-needed injection
of capital in the neighborhood.
Commissioner Molnar illustrated that a number of structures in the near vicinity of this structure have been demolished since the
depiction of the 1960 Sanborn map.
Commissioner Molnar stated that he could be a little more lenient on the windows given the scope of the project, and remand
the colors of the replacement windows to staff – that the white is not attractive.
Commissioner Ponder asked about leniency regarding a contributing apartment bu ilding.
Commissioners Hertel and Gelfman responded that because it is contributing, it should be held to the standards.
Commissioner Gelfman asked about specific windows, and their color.
Administrator Feasel clarified the recommendation that was put forth by staff, that 1) no alternatives were presented for the
existing windows as to rehabilitation, 2) no alternative replacement windows were considered. Administrator Feasel
spoke about the Hotel LaSalle restoration, where original windows were rehabilitated, and aluminum-clad
replacement windows were installed. The absence of cost comparison makes it somewhat difficult for the
commission to assess the project as is. Is restoration feasible?
Commissioner Gelfman suggested that this discussion should be tabled to allow for other alternatives.
Commissioner Molnar asked if the delay would cause construction delays.
Mr. Crumlish stated that the delay would not hinder the construction timeline.
Commissioner Hertel explained the options in front of the Commission: either table for more information, or deny and wait for a
reapply.
Mr. Crumlish asked for clarification on the installation of storm windows.
Inspector Szaday clarified that rentals are required to have screens.
Commissioner Ponder expressed her desire to have more information.
Commissioner Molnar expressed that he would like to see a little bit more information.
Commissioner Hertel asked for clarification as to what will go over the entrance doors.
Mr. Garner explained the lack of information as to what was above the doors, and that the proposed doors are what is believed
to be the best fit.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION: N/A
Commissioner Hertel made a motion to continue COA#2019-0703A, section 1 “Windows”,
so that the applicant can return with information about restoration, as well as
other materials that could be utilized for the windows. Seconded by Commissioner
Ponder.
Five in favor, none opposed.
Vote: 5 – 0. Motion to continue COA #2019-0703A, section 1, “Windows” is passed.
Commissioner Ponder made a motion to approve COA #2019-0703A, section 2, “Doors” as
applied. Seconded by Commissioner Molnar.
Five in favor, none opposed.
Vote: 5 – 0. Motion to approve COA #2019-0703A, section 2, “Doors” as applied is passed.
Commissioner Hertel made a motion to approve COA #2019-0703A, section 3 “Vents”.
Seconded by Commissioner Brazinsky.
Five in favor, none opposed.
Vote: 5 – 0. Motion to approve COA #2019-0703A, section 3, “Vents” as applied is passed.
Commissioner Ponder made a motion to approve COA #2019-0703A, section 4, “Electrical
Meters,” to be installed on the north wall ‘stairway appendage.’ Seconded by
Commissioner Brazinsky.
Five in favor, none opposed.
Vote: 5 – 0. Motion to approve COA #2019-0703A, section 4, “Electrical Meters,” on the
north wall ‘stairway appendage’ is passed.
Specialist Toering clarified that the extension would allow for the project to be reviewed at two
more meetings, if needed.
IV. PRIVILIGE OF THE FLOOR
V. REGULAR BUSINESS
A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
i. February, March, April, May, June
ii. Commissioner Hertel made a motion to approve the meeting minutes
supplied. Seconded by Commissioner Molnar.
Five in favor, none opposed.
Vote: 5 – 0. Motion to approve the minutes passes.
B. STAFF REPORTS
i. Administrative Approvals
1. Commissioner Ponder asked for clarification on COA #2019-0612 for
410 Manitou.
Administrator Feasel explained the approval of the windows for this
project.
C. COMMITTE REPORTS
i. Disposition of Historic Preservation Assets
1. Administrator Feasel explained that ‘Disposition of Historic
Preservation Assets’ and ‘Standards Updates’ on each meeting agenda,
as staff is actively working on these projects.
2. Administrator Feasel updated the Commissioners as to the progress
since the last meeting, and that the project is still on track for July /
August.
ii. Standards Update
1. Administrator Feasel explained that two grants have been awarded to
HPC to facilitate the Standards and Guidelines update process.
2. Administrator Feasel explained the involved parties (HPC, Notre
Dame’s Architecture program, and consultant Kurt Garner) will assist in
this process.
3. Administrator Feasel introduced Kurt Garner, who may be helping staff
navigate this process.
4. Administrator Feasel explained that this process needs to be a part of
the overall branding effort of the City of South Bend Planning team as
they update the Zoning Ordinance.
5. Administrator Feasel explained that the final document needs to be
user-friendly and easy to understand.
6. Commissioner Gelfman stated that new appointees to the Commission
will be assigned to Committees, like the Standards Update.
7. Administrator Feasel explained that this is a complex process and it will
take a lot of effort to create a successful update.
8. Specialist Toering explained that this process will be mutually
beneficial for Indiana Landmarks and the Historic Preservation
Commission, but that we must remember that our objectives may be
slightly different.
9. Commissioner Ponder inquired as to the applicability of other cities –
specifically Grand Rapids, Michigan – as a model for emulation.
iii. Committee Appointments – Commissioner Gelfman will appoint the new
Commission members to Committees at the August meeting.
VI. OLD BUSINESS
A. Leeper Park – Administrator Feasel discussed the reconstruction / reproduction of the
stairs at Leeper Park. Concrete work on the project is under scrutiny to ensure that it
best replicates the appearance and texture of the previous concrete. Commissioner
Hertel expressed concern that the park is being compromised by the addition of
industrial-looking concrete. Inspector Szaday explained the degradation of the previous
stairs and the need for replacement. Administrator Feasel expressed that she will
continue to work with Venues, Parks & Arts to determine the structure of a railing, were
it to be required.
VII. NEW BUSINESS
VIII. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS
A. 212-214 S Michigan – State Theater
i. Specialist Toering informed the Commission of the recent visit by Inspector Szaday,
Specialist Toering, representatives of Civil City of South Bend Department of Code
Enforcement, the Fire Department, and Public Works to the State Theater because of
concerns related to the property. The structure has water leaks, drainage issues, a
bush growing out of the roof, internal electrical concerns, code concerns, and
nonfunctional fire safety equipment. Staff is hopeful for a change in ownership of
the structure before damage is irreversible.
B. Architectural Historian
i. Administrator Feasel indicated that potential candidates should be forwarded to her.
C. Common Council – Appointee needed.
i. Non-Democrat appointee
ii. Apply online, via the Common Council’s website.
D. Leeper Park – Studebaker Fountain – the fountain is being installed.
E. ‘Landmark Revival’ at Studebaker National Museum
i. Administrator Feasel will be speaking alongside City Planner Tim Corcoran
regarding the history of the Dean-Lafayette Building at 115 N Lafayette.
ii. The Studebaker Fountain and the Kizer House will also be discussed.
F. Grant Opportunities
i. Commissioner Gelfman spoke about the following opportunities directed at historic
barns:
a. Barn Preservation Grant Fund
i. $2,500 matching funds, for in-kind labor or material.
ii. Online application: www.indianabarns.org
iii. Funds are awarded at the end of the project.
b. Tax Deduction
i. Equal to the assessed value of a mortise and tenon construction barn
ii. For barns prior to 1950
c. OCRA – Office of Community and Rural Affairs