HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 1988ID C
historic reservation commusso
p ®n
of south bend and st. joseph county
ROOM 1123 COUNTY CITY BUILDING
south bend, indiana 46601 (219) 284-9798
AGENDA OF THE REGULAR MONTHLY
MEETING OF THE HISTORIC
PRESERVATION COh'MISSION
Third Floor Conference Room County/City Buillding
7:30 p.m. - Regular Monthly Mtg.
August 15, 1988
I. Call to Order
II. Roll Call
III. Public Hearing
A. Certificates of Appropriateness
1. 1715 E. Wayne - EW
2. 115 N. St. James Ct.-Central High School-LL
B. Historic Landmark
C. Historic Districts
IV. REGULAR BUSINESS
A. Approval of Minutes - July 18, 1988
B. Treasurer's Report - July, 1986
C. Correspondence
D. Committee Reports
1. Certificates of Appropriateness
a) 620 W. Washington -LL
b7 815 Arch -EDP
2. Budget & Finance
3. Legal
4. Historic Districts
5. Historic Landmark.
6. Public Relations & Community Education
7. Director's Report
V. Old Business
Vi . New Business
VII. Hearing of Visitors
VIII. Announcements & Miscellaneous Matters
IX. ADJOURNMENT
historicpreservation commission
of south bend and st. joseph county
ROOM 1123 COUNTY CITY BUILDING
south bend, indiana 46601 (219) 284-9798
TO:
FROM:
M E M O R A N D U M
David Chapleau
Brian Poland
DATE: August 3,
SUBJECT: Appeals of Certificates of Appropriateness i
Please advise us of the procedures and our responsibilities for an appeal
of a Certificate of Appropriateness to the Common Council by a property
owner.
Also advise us of the same regarding an HPC petition to the Common Council
to delay a demolition permit Sec 21-117.2 (e) (2).
historic preservation commission
of south bend and st. joseph county
ROOM 1123 COUNTY CITY BUILDING
south bend, indiana 46601 (219) 284-9798
m n T T. r F
There will be a meeting of the Central High School Certificate of
Appropriateness Committee of the Historic Preservation Commission of
South Bend and St. Joseph County to discuss the following items:
Central High School Renovation
The meeting will take place at 1:30, on August 2, 1988 in Room 116 of
Central High School.
ID 10
istoric reservation commissi
p on
of south bend and st. joseph county
ROOM 1123 COUNTY CITY BUILDING
south bend, indiana 46601 (219) 284-9798
August 3, 1988
Ron Farrand, Director
Buildings and Grounds
635 S. Main Street
South Bend, IN 46601
Dear Mr. Farrand:
Pursuant to our meeting on August 2, 1988, this is an addendum to the
information requested in our letter of July 28, 1988.
3. Boilerhouse and Chimney
a. justification of the demolition of the structures versus
efforts to recreate the 1914 landscape plan (since these
structures existed at that time).
b. justification of demolition costs versus the number of parking
spaces created.
c. analysis of affect on proposed west side entrance design if
structures were to remain.
d. cost of demolition of structures.
e. structural stability and feasibility for reuse such as for
storage, mechanical systems, etc.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
John Oxian
Chairman, Landmark Committee
JO/BLP/ef
cc: Sam Jones
LeRoy Troyer Assoc.
HPC Members
Submitted to: South Bend Tribune Editor
August 11, 1988
Submitted by:
Lynette Jentoft-Nilsen, Director
Historic Preservation Commission
of So. Send and St. Joseph County
11th Floor, County/City Building
South Bend, IN 46601
"On Preserving Historic Claptrap"
In response to the August Sth editorial titled "Saving
Claptrap", I would like the opportunity to clarify several
misconceptions about historic preservation and the
procedures of the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC).
A misconception evident in Mondays editorial is that only
"architectural gems" should be saved, and only
"architectural gems" meet the National Register and Local
Landmark standards. The National Register is the official
list of districts, sites, buildings, structures and objects
throughout the country that are at least fifty years old and
considered to be of local, state or national significance in
history, architecture, archaeology, or culture. Locally
designated landmarks must go through an evaluation process,
be recommmended by the Historic Preservation Commission, and
then are approved by the Common Council by ordinance. The
Central High School complex was designated a local landmark
in 1982 and was listed on the National Register in 1985.
Structures that are placed on the National Regis_•ter must go
through a rigorous process of evaluation. Historical and
cultural significance plays an equal role with architectural
merit in determining eligibility for the Register. The role
of cultural, educational and industrial facilities• are
important aspects of the historic development and the life
of our communities., and are represented by the preservation
of landmarks important in these endeavors. It is also of
particular importance that functional and supportive
elements of individual landmarks be preserved, or these
individual landmarks lose their "context". All of us
understand the distortions and ambiguity that often result
from hearing a phrase or sentence "out -of -context", so, too
taking a building "out -of -context" can alter and distort our
understanding of its function and importance. As_• these
auxiliary structures supported and enhanced the development
and operations of the individual structures they play an
important role in our understanding of their primary
structure.
An early example of this is the removal of accessory
buildings and slave quarters from historic plantations in
the South, often to clean up or "pretty up" the site. None
of these buildings may have had high "artistic merit", but
they are an integral part of the plantation, and are
essential to the understanding of how plantation estates
were developed and maintained.
The role of technical educational facilities and their
support of the local economy and growth are an important
aspect of the cultural and historical environment of South
Bend. The Central High School Vo-Tec building was one of
the first buildings in this state to implement this
educational mission in a structure especially designed and
ideally suited to provide the technically skilled workers
(that supported) the burgeoning local industrial growth. It
may be the earliest building of this particular importance
in existence in this state.
The Vo-Tec building and the powerplant are part of the
Central High School building and complex; they were
necessary elements in the High School's everyday
functioning. The Vo-Tec building was erected in response to
a 1913 state law requiring a vocational education facility
at each high school. It was an especially important aspect
of high school education for South Bend, whose growth and
prosperity from the 1860's through the 1950's was based on
the development and employment of a skilled industrial labor
force. Companies such as Studebaker, Singer, Bendix, Oliver
and South Bend Lathe required a steady supply of trained
technical workers.
The Vo-Tec building itself represented the most modern ideas
of industrial building design, providing ample sources of
natural lighting and an utilitarian and designed working
environment. The exterior architectural details repeated
design elements found on the High School building itself,
but on a simplified scale and detail.
The powerplant and chimney ar•e similar to the Neo-Classical
design and us•e of materials found in the main high school
building. Its design is• simplier• but it is significant as
an integral part of the original design of the high school
complex.
When dealing with change to a building that is eligible or•
has been designated a landmark and listed on the National
Register, the Historic Pres.er•vation Commission is mandated
to follow the Secretary of Interior's Standards for these
properties. This requires the HPC to determine the effect
that the project will have on the landmarks, and whether
this effect will be adverse. If an adverse effect is
determined, then certain steps and procedures must be
followed to mitigate these effects.
Demolition, obviously, is considered to be an extremely
adverse effect, and is only allowable after the
consideration of several alternative measures. There is a
need to consider direct alternatves• to the project that will
achieve the project's goals, for example, parking spaces,
that do not result in the destruction of the landmark, a=_•
well as other alternatives that allow some change that does
not alter the character of the landmark. This requirement
underscores the HPC's requests for detailed information
regarding feasibility studies and documenation of
alternative considerations.
If the demolition is eventually allotlaed because of
concurrence with these studies, certain provisions are then
required to mitigate the physical loss of the culturally and
historically significant properties. These usually include
the documentation of the structures by Historic American
Buildings Survey drawings and photodocumentation, and
on -site interpretive information to allow the public to
understand the forms and functions of the missing elements
of the landmark.
The School Corporation's application to the HPC is a
preliminary proposal that requests demolition of the Vo-Tec
and powerplant portions of the Central High School complex
to make room for the creation of additional parking spaces
and because it currently does not "need" the Vo-Tec and
powerplant buildings. At the Historic Preservation
Commission meeting on July 18, 1988, when this project was
discussed, school administrators indicated that the
demolitions would not solve the parking problem, but would
only add approximately 37 spaces where the Vo-Tec building
now stands, and 3 spaces where the powerplant is located.
There vO l l st i l l be a tremendous need for additional
off -site partying or the development of an on -site parking
garage. Alternative solutions could include using the first
floor of the Vo-Tec building for parking, or the development
of a parking garage on the site of the previous junior high
school that occupied the northwest corner of the site.
On the local level, the HPC follows the Landmark Standards
adopted at the time each landmark was officially designated
by ordinance. In the case of Central High School the
standards for demolition are:
"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 preliminary structural report provided by the
School Corporation clearly indicates that this is not
the case. It states "The building(s) can be considered
to be structurally sound and would not require major
structural repair or reconstruction."
It is clear, then, that the landmark buildings do not
currently pose a threat to the public safety. The
Commission must apply strict procedures and
documentation requirements for applications that
request variances to demolish any designated landmarks
for other reasons.
The Historic Preservation Commission is essentially in
agreement with the concepts of the rehabilitation of
Central High School for the school's administrative
offices. At it's July 18, 1988 meeting, the HPC
approved the first five items, and approved the concept
of a sixth item, relative to the rehabilitation of the
High School building itself, and only tabled the
decision on the demolition of the Vo-Tec and powerplant
buildings request pending receipt of additional
information. At a meeting requested by the HPC with
the South Bend School Corporation and its architects on
August 2, 1988, informational requirements for the next
HPC meeting were discussed in detail to facilitate the
completion of the information gathering process so that
a decision could be made at the next HPC meeting
scheduled for August 15.
The Historic Preservation Commission has to make a
careful consideration of the facts and alternatives
before a determination can be made that a variance to
allow the demoliton of two local landmarks and National
Register properties is t,,iarranted. General un-informed
sentiments that consider these structures ",junk -piles",
"useless monstrosities" and "claptrap" do not
substitute for federal and local review procedures.
Personal attacks, prejudices and threats likewise do
not facilitate a. forum for rational decision- making
and problem -solving. The HPC would be neglecting its
duty to assure that the policies and procedures of the
National Register and the South Bend Landmark Ordinance
are follovied if it allowed public misconceptions and
sentiments to prematurely halt or influence their
proceedings.
historic preservation commission
of south bend and st. joseph county
ROOM 1123 COUNTY CITY BUILDING
south bend, indiana 46601 (219) 284-9798
MEMORANDUM
To: Ron Farrand
From: Brian Poland
Date: August 10, 1988
I Subject: Central High School
The Certificate of Appropriateness application for work at the above listed
property will be reviewed at the August 15 , 1988 meeting of the Historic
Preservation Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph County. The meeting
will be held at 7:30 p.m. in the Third Floor Conference Room of the County/
City Building. A copy of the meeting agenda is enclosed for your use.
The Historic Preservation Commission requests that you, or your representative,
be present to answer any questions that might be posed by the Commission members
relative to your application.
Thank you for your cooperation, and should you have any questions, please do
not hesitate to call our office at 284-9798.
cc: Dr. Sriver
Sam Jones
LeRoy Troyer Assoc.
opreservation storic commosgoon
0 of soulth bend and st. josepai county
ROOM 1123 COUNTY CITY BUILDING
south bend, indiana 46601 (219) 284-9798
August 15, 1988
STAFF REPORT
302 "S . Sunnys. i de
South Bend, IN 46615
East t.Jayne Street Historic District
PROPOSAL
The owner proposes to replace the original slate roofing
with GAF S1ate1ine Class A Asphalt Roof shingles with a
slate blue color. Appropriate repairs to the decking .will
be made.
STANDARDS
II. Existing Structures.
A. Building Materials
1) Required
Original exterior building materials shall be
retained.
B. Roofs and Roofin4_
2) Recommended
t.Jhenever possible, the original shape and
materials of the roof should 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 matched
as closely as possible the original composition,
size, shape, color, and texture.
RECOMMENDATION
Slate, as an original roofing material, can last from 50 to
100 years., depending upon its quality. Upon investigation,
it is obvious that the slate roofing of this house is
extremely deterioriated and needs to be replaced.
There are several types of appropriate replacement material
which range from the Supradur brand mineral fiber shingle
which closely resembles slate to the as.phaltlfiberglas.s
materials which are available in slate blue color. Each of
these replacement possibilities vary to the degree in how
closely the slate is replicated.
In determining an appropriate replacement material, the
replacement material should replicate as many of the
characteristics and qualities of the original material as
possible. These include, but are not limited to, color,
composition, size, and texture.
Staff recommends that a. Variance to the standards is granted
to allow the removal of the slate material due to its
deteriorated condition, but that more appropriate
replacement materials be investigated.
blp
Variance granted to allow removal.
Proposed replacement material was deemed appropriate and approved.
August 15, 1988
historic reservation commosso
p on
of south bend and st. joseph county
ROOM 1123 COUNTY CITY BUILDING
south bend, indiana 46601 (219) 284-9798
M I N U T E S
Regular Meeting Third Floor Conference Room
August 15, 1?88 Room 323 County/City Bu i 1 di nq
I. Call to Order
The meeting teas called to order at 7:33 p.m.
II. Roll Call
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. John Ox i an ; Mrs. Janeanne Pe teas_; Mrs. Gina
DeLarue11e; Mr. Odell Newburn; Mr. Herb Herendeen;
Mr. F. J. Nimtz; Mrs Martha Choi tz; Ms. Jenny
Pitts-Manier, Assistant City Attorney; Ms. Lynette
Jentoft-Nilsen, Director; Mr. Brian Poland,
Administrative Assistant; Mrs. Elaine Fountain,
Commission Secretary.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mrs. Joann Spor1eder; Mr. Charles Hayes.
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Phil C:ar twr i gh t , Troyer Group; Mr. Ron Far r• an d ,
SBCSC; Dr. Monte Sriver, SBCSC; Mr. Roger Hulsey,
Troyer Group; Mr. Thomas Reidy; SBCSC; Mr. Charles
Lennon, Jr., SBCSC; Ms. Trudy McManama, SBCSC; Mr.
Ralph Komos i nsk i , SBCSC; Mr. Larry Ze i qer , Mr. Todd
Geiger, 61550 J.S. 31; Mr. Tim Sheehan, contractor
for Ed Gergesha, 302 S. Sunnyside;
III. A. Certificates of Appropriateness
1) 1715 E. Wayne Street - EWS
Owner• proposes to construct a 2 story rear addition ixih i ch
vhli 1 1 be 10' x 14" ( see staff report - proposal 2 - Appendix
A). Mrs. Choitz moved to approve; Mr. Nimtz seconded; motion
approved.
2) 302 Sunn7• s i de - ERAS
Owner proposes to replace original slate roofing ►,.ti th GAF
S1 ate 1 i ne asphal t roof shingles and w i th appropriate repairs
to the decking. Oviner• also proposes to replace gutters with
half -round galvanized steel and dovjnspou is with materials
similar to existing. Mr. Her•endeen moved to approve variance
for removal of original slate and replacement with proposed
material , as v.1el 1 as staff rev i evi on site wi th the contrac,tor-
a.s. to the appropriateness of retaining the slate on the
_. i dev,al 1 s of the dormers; Mr. N i mtz seconded; Mrs. Cho i tz
against; motion approved.
3) 115 N. St. James Ct . - Central High School - LL
The proposal for Part 2 - Certificate of Appropriateness was
tabled for further information at the July 18, 15186 meeting.
The proposal includes the removal of the Vo-Tec building and
povter•pl ant and construction of a ne►,i parking lot awi th
additional landscaping on west side of building in context
with original plan (see staff report - Appendix B) .
Staff recommended consideration of the fol 1 ot,,ti ng three
options:
Option I
Maintaining the Vo-Tec and povterplant buildings vii th the
recommendation that parking be developed on the first floor
and mothbal 1 i nc► of the second floor.
Option II
Al1ou;ting demolition of the Vo-Tec and powerplant buildings
with preservation of the smokestack twi th mitigation measures
(see staff report - Appendix: B) .
Option III
Retaining the povierpl ant on site along with the smokestack,
and allowing the demolition of the l.o-Tec building, with
mitigation measures for Vo-Tec building.
Mr. Ox i an questioned Pis. Pitts-Ma.n i er, A_.sn` t . City Attorney,
whether the specific provisions of the historic landmark
standards take precedence over the provisions in the
ordinance regarding demolition of landmarks. Ms.
Pitts-Manier stated that in deciding a Certificate of
Appropriateness the hpc must consider the three provisions
indicated in the ordinance (e.g. 1. appropriateness of
proposed demolition of the historic landmark; 2. potential
hardship costs; and 3. detriment to the public vlelfare and
safety.) in addition to the provisions of the standards.
August 15, 1988 PAGE 2
Mr. t4imtz moved to approve the C of A according to Option II
but deleting the t&ior•ds " vj i th preservation of the
smokestack"; Mr_.. Choi tz seconded; Mr. Nimtz, Mrs. Choi tz,
Mrs. Petra=_s, Mr. Herendeen for; Mr. Ox i an and Mrs..
DeLarue 1 1 e against; vote 4-2; motion carried.
IV. Regular Business
A. Approval of Minutes
Mr. Ox i an stated a correction to the minutes should be made under
No. 3 - Environmental Impact Statement - 2) Central High School,
Part I I , to delete vlor•ds "Mrs.. Sporl eder voted in -Favor of
tabling" and add Mrs. Spor l eder brake tie with "yes" vote. Mr.
Herendeen moved to approve as corrected; Mr. Nimtz seconded;
motion approved.
B. Treasurer's Report
Mrs. Choi tz moved to approve trea_.ur•er "s report; Mr. Herendeen
seconded; motion approved.
C. Correspondence
List not available
D. Committee Reports
1. Certificate of Appropriateness.
a) 620 W. Washington - Tippecanoe Place
Mr. Poland reported staff approval for repair and
replacements of several steps on north side.
b) 815 Arch - EDP
Mr. Poland reported staff approval of entry replacement.
2. Budget 8, Finance
a) City and County Budgets
Mr. Oxian reported that Ms. Jentoft-Nilsen, Mr. Poland
and he attended a budget meeting 4l i th Mrs. Humphries
regarding HPC's submission to the city budget.
3. Lepal
No Report
4. Historic Districts
No Report
August 15, 1988 PAGE
5. Historic Landmarks
a) Dreweys Brewery
Mr. Ox i an reported that he has been in contact ixi i th the
owner of the Dreweys Breviery in regard to landmark status
application.
b) 14?12 Brick Rd.
Ms. Jentoft-Nilsen reported that the owner at 1410? Erick
Rd. has proceeded to work on the garage L%l i thou t
permission and has exceeded the Building Department
height variance of the roof on the garage. The Building
Department is investigating this matter and plans to take
appropriate action.
6. Public Relations& Community Education
No Report
7. Director's Report
a) Section 106 Workshop
Ms. Jentoft-Ni 1 sen reported that the 'Section 106 Workshop
in Seattle was eery informative and she provided kfiorkshop
materials for Commission perusal.
b) Quarterly Regional Meeting for Historic Districts.
Ms. Jentoft-Nilsen requested permission for she and Mr.
Poland to attend the Quarterly Regional Meeting for
Historic Districts on Thursday, August 18 in Nappanee at
an expense not to exceed $25, which be taken out of
the SRM Grant. Mr. N i mtz moved to approve request; Mr.
Herendeen seconded! motion approved.
V. Old Business
No Report
Vi . New Business
No Report
VII. HearinG of Visitors
No Report
.'III. Announcements L_ Miscellaneous Matters
No Report
August 15, 1988 PAGE 4
Mr. Nimtz moved to adjourn; Mrs. DeLaruel le seconded; meeting adjourned at
5:35 p.m.
August 15, 1988 PAGE 5
APPENDIX A
a a
hoihistoric*-%reservation commossoon
of south bend and st. joseph county
ROOM 1123 COUNTY CITY BUILDING
south bend, indiana 46601 (219) 284-9798
August 15, I'P88
STAFF REPORT
revised
1715 E. Wayne Street
South Bend, It's! 46615
East Wayne Street Historic District
PROPOSAL
The owner proposes to build a two story addition which
includes the expansion of the existing kitchen and second
floor bedroom. The addition will be 10 foot by 14 foot in
plan. The new addi t ion toi 1 1 require the removal of an
original L' x rear hip roof entry appendage. The root
will match the slope of the existing roof with the peak apex
approximately 1 foot lower than the existing. Eave trim and
gutters will match the existing as closely as possible. The
surface material will be brick and stucco and
half-timbering. The spandrel between the first and second
floor windows will have a double "x" half-timber pattern
similar to the treatment on the existing rear dormer. The
brick from the removed appendage and rear wall will be
reused in the addition. The brick will be supplemented by
new brick to match as closely as possible. Openings on the
addition will consist of: Marco casement window with muttons
and screens with the second floor window topped with 1 Norco
Arch window on the north elevation; and i Norco full view
door with full view side dead lights on the east elevation.
STANDARDS
III. New Construction
A. Height and Proportion
c. Recommended
Contemporary design should be compatible in
character and mood to the building_ or
neighborhood.
B. Building Materials
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
I I . E., i st i nq Structures
A. Building Materials
1. Required
Original Exterior building materials shall be
retained.
RECOMMENDATION
The general design of the addition including the removal of
the original rear entry appendage and subsequent reuse of
the brick: from this area does not negatively affect the
historic character of the residence and does not conflict
with the historic district standards since the original
material will remain on the building.
New brick: that matches the color of the original brick: will
be used on the addition. The intermixing of any new brick;
with original brick; salvaged from the rear wall of the house
and appendage is appropriate because any color variation
between the old and new brick; would continue the character
of the house since the original brick: already has a. random
color variation pattern.
One of the distinctive features of the Tudor Revival style
is the use of the steeply pitched gable roof as used on this.
residence. The proposed roofline replicates the original
slope, but is offset enough to distinguish the new from the
old.
Staff recommends approval of the proposal.
M.
Deemed appropriate.
Approved 8-15-88
0
SCALE: ��/ •� APPROVED BY DRAWN BY
--_ - tJ,1�. DATE:
DRAWING NUMBER
7rTHFDYM POFr 18AS-W - 11 x 17
historic reservati co �nossm
p n
of south bend and st. joseph county
ROOM 1123 COUNTY CITY BUILDING
south bend, indiana 46601 (219) 284-9798
August 101 1488
STAFF REPORT
1715 E. Wayne Street
South Bend, IN 46615
East Wayne Street Historic District
PROPOSAL
The ot%iner proposes to expand the existing kitchen by adding
a. 10 foot by 14 foot addition to the north side of the
residence. The new addition wi 1 1 require the removal of an
original 3' x rear hip roof entry appendage. The roof
tali l l be a lore gable roof with ease and gutter to match the
original as closely as possible. The surface material will
be brick with the owner proposing to reuse brick removed
from the rear wall and appendage and brick removed from the
rear wall of the garage. Openings on the addition vii 1 1
consist of 1 Norco casement windovi vii th muttons and screens
topped t,.li th 1 Norco Arch wi ndovi on the north elevation and
Norco full view door with full view side dead lights on the
east elevation.
STANDARDS
III. Net,,i Construction
A. Height and Proportion
2. Recommended
Contemporary design should be compatible in
character and mood to the building_ or
neighborhood.
B. Building Materials
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.
II. Exi=_.tins Structures
A. Building Materials
1. Required
Original Exterior building materials shall be
retained.
RECOMMENDATION
The General design of the addition including the removal of
the original rear entry appendage and subsequent reuse of
the brick from this area does not negatively affect the
historic character of the residence and does not conflict
with the historic district standards since the original
material will remain on the building.
The proposed removal of the brick from the rear of the
garage will violate the standards. New brick that matches
the color of the original brick should be used on the
addition. The intermixxino of any new brick with original
brick salvaged from the rear wall of the house and appendage
would be appropriate. Any color variation between the old
and new brick would continue the character of the house
since the original brick already has a. random color
variation pattern.
One of the distinctive features of the Tudor Revival style
is the use of the steeply pitched gable roof as used on this
residence. The introduction of a. low pitched gable roof
would introduce a non -conforming design feature. The
existing rear appendage has a hip roof, in fact the only hip
roof on the house. The use of a hip roof on the addition
will reuse an original design feature. Hoiwever, the hip
roof feature will cause a. conflict with the proposed arch
window. A solution could be achieved by the extension of
the arched window into a condition that is termed
"v--)al1-dormer". This feature is currently used on the house.
Staff supports the approval of the addition with the
recommendation that brick from the garage is not removed and
new brick is used as a supplement to the salvaged brick from
the house and that the use of the hip roof is considered by
the owner .
blp
Withdrawn by owner on 8-15-88
Replaced by Proposal 2.
APPENDIX B
historic reservation commossm
p n
of south bend and st. joseph county
ROOM 1123 COUNTY CITY BUILDING
south bend, indiana 46601 (219) 284-9798
August 15, 1988
STAFF REPORT
Central High School
115 N. St. James Court
South Send, IN 46601
Local Landmark
National Register of Historic Places
PROPOSAL
Part 2 - July 18, 1988 Certificate of Appropriateness
Tabled for further information at July 18, 1988 meeting.
The proposal includes the removal of the Vo-Tec Building and
boi1erhouse and construction of new parking lot with
additional landscaping on west side of building in context
v,ith original plan;
The School Corporation's reasons for the demolition of the
VoTec Building and Boilerhouse include:
a) The South Bend Community School Corporation does not
require additional space outside the Central High
School building to fulfill its program requirements;
b) The SB Community School Corp. needs additional on -site
parking in order to fulfill program and code
requirements;
c) A nev, entry is desired from the west or parking side of
the property;
d) The Vocational/Technical and Powerplant Buildings have
little or no aesthetic value and detract from the
quality of the Central High School building;
e) The costs for renovation and restoration of the
Vocational/Technical building and Boilerhouse will
severely affect the quality and feasibility of the
renovation of Central High School;
f) The cost of renovation for the Vocational/Technical
building into feasible space would create leasehold
costs that would not be competitive in the market
place.
STANDARDS
Part 2
D. Demolition
Historic landmarks shall not be demolished. When a
landmark poses a. threat to the public safely, and
demolition i s 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.
RECOMMENDATIOhl
A review of The South Bend School Corporation requests and
the Supplemental Report suggests the following conclusions:
Item a - That they do not need the building appears to
be supportable with the current student population
prof ec t i ions.. However, not "needing" a landmark building
does not constitute a. strong enough reason to demolish it.
Item b - The issue of the Vo-Tec and Powerplant
buildings sites providing adequate parking spaces is not
supported; page u of the Supplemental Report indicates 145
parking spaces with the buildings remaining and only 149
spaces if the buildings are removed.
Item c - The concept of creating a new entry on the west
side of the Central High School building was approved at the
previous_. meeting.
Item d - The aesthetic and historic value of the Central
High School buildings have already been determined through
the process of landmark des.i gnat i on and National Register
status.
Item e - The economic feasibility or hardship created by
requiring the maintenance of these buildings on site is
explored in the Supplemental Report. It is estimated that
the cost of mothballing the Vo-Ter_ building is approximately
$302,185.00 minus demolition cost of $48,000, and landscape
and parking lot development cost of $17,000, equaling
approximately $235,000.00, with a total project cost of
approximately 7.5 million.
$2 :5,000.00 would seem to be a feasible figure to
preserve 22,000 square feet of useable space.
Therefore, the question becomes whether $255,000 out of
a 7.5 million project is an economic hardship?
($255,000/$7,500,000 is. approximately 1/30 of the project
costs.) Staff finds that the figures do not present
conclusive evidence of economic hardship.
the Central High School complex as is possible vlh i 1 e
al 1 ovii ng for use of the structures as the School Corporation
administrative offices. In allowing this use, the concept
of access from the viest facade has been approved recognizing
the 'School Corporation's need to have convenient access to
the building.
Central High School's symmetrical design plan is an
important consideration in revie4-.ling the plan for the entry
on the west facade. The first design choice is to continue
this symmetrical treatment on the net,i west entry, opposite
the original entry on the east side of the building.
However, the Vo-Tec and Powerplant buildings obscure the
visual path and may even physically impinge on the site of
the proposed ,west entry. The question of the importance of
this entry needs to be addressed to make a final
determination of its design. An employee or staff entry has
different requirements from both a design and accessibility
point of viet.t than a public entry. A public entry requires
visual prominence and physical accessibility.
Staff recommends the consideration of the following three
options:
OPTION I
Maintaining the Vo-Tec and Powerplant buildings with the
recommendation that parking be developed on the first floor
and mothballing of the second floor. This option provides
for preservation of the historic value and integrity of the
site, and provides for some needed parking on the site.
Disadvantages include a conflict with the design of the 4wes•t
facade entry, and limits landscaping on the taestern portion
of the site.
OPTION II
Al 1 owi ng demolition of the Vo-Tec and Pot.,.terpl ant buildings
with preservation of the smokestack with the fol 1 ovi i ng
mitigation measures:
a) Production of HAES drawings and photodocumentat i on
of the buildings;
b) Placement of an outside commemorative marker noting
the significance of the site;
c) Installation of permanent indoor interpretive
panels in a public area. relating the history of
educational buildings on the site; and
d) Consultation with the HPC and Northern Indiana
Historical Society prior to demolition to determine
which design elements should be retained and reused
or preserved for future use or exhibit.
This option allows for the use of the physical site for
parking and landscaping, the development of a. symmetrical
west facade entry in keeping with the historic des.ion plan
of the main Central High School building, and provides for
tvto dimensional documentation and interpretation of the
site.
The disadvantage is. the physical loss of the Vo-Tec and
Pok.ierplant buildings.
OPTION III
Retaining the Powerplant on the site because of its historic
significance and connection with the smokestack and main
Central High School building, and allowing the demolition of
the Vo-Tec building, with the above mitigation measures for
the Vo-Tec building.
This option maintains the historic integrity of the
powerplant, smokestack and high school building, v.1hile
allowing for reuse of the physical site of the Vo-Tec
building. The disadvantages include physical loss of the
Vo-Tec bu i 1 di ng and the vest facade entry desi on is
disrupted, vaith poor visual and physical accessibility.
Given the advantages of reuse for the Central High School
building, the consideration that the west facade entry is
designed as a public entrxway, and that the historic design
of Central High School requires a symmetrical placement,
with maximum visual and physical accessibility, the staff
recommends Option II.
If the vies.t facade entry is pr imar i 1 y for employee and
service requirement, Option I is recommended.
'le:
TR RPT AUG SG
Page 1
.NE
ITEM
REV BUDGE 1988
CURRY T BILLS
YEAR TO DATE
QUIETUS
�` BALANCE
§2)
POSTAGE
$500
1500.00
,28.65
»245.75
»n.00
$254.25
\S>
TRAVEL
§250
a250.00
$130.00
f1310.00
»0.00
»120.00
g4)
MILEAGE
$200
$200.CIO
§e.00
»O.00
«0.00
$200.00 .
'15)
BOOKS
$100
»l00.00
. $0,00
»33.20
%0.00
&314.so
20>
COtF E P
$250
$250.00
$250.00
»258.00
$B.QO
*O.00
g1)
PRINTING
$!BO
%150.00
s45.O3
%149,91
$0.00
s.09
/2>
�lh[4!, K AD
%a00
§250.D0
$0.00
f0.00
$O,00
$250.0O
43)
PHOTOG
S300
$SOO.00
$0.00 }
GO.00
fO.Oo
$300.00
32)
EQUIPMENT
» 75
a75.00
f0.00 `
»0.00
§D.OD
$75.QD
J!>
LEGAL SEA
«375
fS75.00
»0.00
»E.00
¢Q.00
$375.00
,62)
TECH ASST
»S50
f35D.CIO
SO.00
$0.00
<0.00
&350.00
35)
LEGAL NOTE
» 50
$50.00
»B.00
90.00
»D.00
$50.0O
SB>
OFFICE SUP
»750
$75Q.00
%142.G0
t470.58
$O.QD
f279.42
Jo)
DUES
s 50
$50.O0
. a a . 0 0
»2S.O0
.a r0
$25.00
21)
SUBSCRIR
» 50
»1,10.00
f0.00-
»l8.00
$Q.00
«52.00
JAL
$3,200.00
»631,48
$l,G52.g4
«o.QD
»2,847.56
ORIC
PRES FUND
f21,4a5.00
$3,812.90
&16,025.41
SO.00
$5,409.59
R REC
MGMT FUND$18,154.07
f2,236.65
<l3,240.66
$0.00
$l,313.11
JAL
. 1-89; S9.07
$6,049.53
»82,266.07
<6.00
-6,723.00
GRAND TOTAL
$43,289.07
$6,711.01
$54,218.51
$0.00
$9,070.53
!ALL
THIN SURVEY
$994.03
$0.00
30.00
$0.00
3994.03
0