COA APPLICATION #2020-0302: NORTHERN INDIANA HISTORIC SOCIETY INC. V. SOUTH BEND HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION

Home Browse Search

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 building that arc 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 recommends approval. Prepared by Adam Toering Historic Preservation Specialist Approved by Elicia Feasel Historic Preservation Administrator PETITIONER COMMENTS: Commissioner Andrews asked about the previous approval regarding the multiple doors on the front facade. Specialist Toering clarified that the previous approval allowed for the removal of one of the three doors on the front facade, that a second door was retained but is non-functional, and that the third door is the primary entrance. Commissioner Downs-Krostenko asked for clarification regarding the sequence of the replacement of the doors and windows to the rear of the property and stated that the sliding door is anachronistic to the style of the house. She asked for clarification on the rear deck as to whether there would be a railing or not. Mr. Nevarez stated that the installed material was the same as what was already present on the house, and that the rear deck was low enough to not require a railing. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Commissioner Downs-Krostenko asked if the project could be broken apart to approve or deny individual components. Commissioner Gelfinan stated that the project could be broken apart if the Commission desired to do so, but that she had visited the house, and that the vinyl and sliding door were at the rear of the house. Commissioner Stalheim agreed and noted that the entirety of the windows of the house are vinyl, and that it is at least uniform. Commissioner Andrews stated that although vinyl isn't her preference, at least these alterations are at the rear of the house. Commissioner Tiffany stated he was familiar with this house and that it has been improved. Commissioner Deegan agreed. PUBLIC DISCUSSION: Mr. Nevarez clarified that vinyl was selected because vinyl was already installed everywhere else on the house.