June 1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• owner, the regulatory effects of the National Register being limited to the federal government itself. He further noted that the owner in this case was primarily interested in the possible financial benefits of National Register designation as an incentive to sale of the property. Mr. Oxian inquired as to whether Mr. Duvall had discussed the property with the Owner. He indicated that he had not but that Historic Landmarks foundation had and that the owner, provided ready access to the commission's consultant -for purpose of developing the nomination. Mrs. Choitz asked how much land area was involved. Mr. Duvall responded that the site described contained 4.7 acres. Mrs. Choitz moved that the commission send a favorable recommendation to the Mayor and to State Historic Preservation Office for the nomination of the Northern Indiana College/South Bend Chilled Plow Building to the National Register of Historic Places. Mr. Fine seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 3) North Pumping Station Mr. Duvall read the Staff Report. Mr. Talley noted the boundary description in the nomination and inquired if the recently enacted amendment to the Local Landmark legal description would affect',this boundary. Mr. Duvall responded that it would not. He further noted that the National register listing could be amended in future to encompass more area if a significant association were to be established. Mr. Duvall stated that the amendment of the legal description followed the land purchased by the city for the well fields whereas the proposed National Register boundary was a boundary of convenience drawn to define the land immediately surrounding the structure. Mr. Talley asked if there was any particular advantage or disadvantage of broader site description vis-a-vis the Landmarking of Leeper Park and the development of a • Preservation Plan for this park including funding sources etc. Mr. Oxian suggested that he felt it was wise, to separate the issues as the Parks Department would then be drawn into the Pump Station issue increasing the inter -departmental posturing around these issues. He asked for further clarification of the ,proposed National Register site. Mr. Duvall clarified that the boundary of convenience essentially followed the drive which surrounds the Pumping Station and includes the above ground cistern but does not include the reservoir. Mr. Oxian indicated that he felt National Register designation for the park should be developed as'a separate issue but that he could agree.with the inclusion of the reservoir in this nomination&a.i133c aft+y-- ,•1?� b�-??�� *^ hP^^ g�-�ed. Mr. Duvall' explained that in this case, the nomination was being developed according to Criterion "C" for its architectural style rather than for Criterion "A" for association with events. He went on to say that under these criteria, if the eventual intention is to list the park as a planned landscape, then it would need a separate nomination and that if a broader site were applied to this nomination its scope would be limited to the well fields associated with the utility use of the building during its period of significance (1912-1945). This designation would then cause any preservation plan based on this listing to focus on the utility uses rather than the planned landscape aspects related to the park's history and development. Mrs. Choitz discussed that the reservoir did have architectural interest featuring a buttressed surround although the retaining wall cap had been altered. Mr. Talley then discussed some discrepancies between his own research and Ms. Greiff's noting that he believed the reservoir to have been built in 1912 to 1914 simultaneous with the Pumping Station whereas Ms. Greiff had stated that it was constructed in 1910. Mr. Talley noted that the • cistern .was the oldest extant structure having been built in 1£399. This led him to ponder where the small pump houses figured in this issue as they were also constructed during the period'of significance. Mr. Duvall allowed that he could not account for Ms. Grieff's chronology but that she had been provided with Mr. Talley's chronologies as they had been developed. He also noted that. most of the bibliographic citations in the nomination predated the