Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Signed Minutes - July 20, 2020

Home Browse Search

in the County/City Building of South Bend. The Commission is an invaluable source of information about all facets of rehabilitation and restoration. Prohibited Wood siding shall not be resurfaced with new material which is inappropriate or was unavailable when the building was constructed, such as artificial stone, brick veneer asbestos or asphalt shingles. Sandblasting or the use of harsh detergents shall not be used on masonry including brick, stucco, limestone, flagstone and sandstone. This method of cleaning erodes the surface material and accelerates deterioration. Brick surfaces shall not be painted unless they had been painted originally. Repointing shall not be done with a mortar of high Portland cement content which can often create a bond that is stronger than the building material. This can cause deterioration as a result of the differing coefficient of expansion and the differing porosity of the material and the mortar, which can result in serious damage to adjacent brick. Paint shall not be removed from masonry surfaces indiscriminately. Not Recommended Waterproof or water repellent coatings or surface consolidation treatments should not be used on masonry surfaces unless required to solve a specific problem that has been studied and identified. Coatings are frequently unnecessary and expensive, and can accelerate deterioration of the masonry. Mortar joints which do not need repointed should not be repointed. SITE VISIT REPORT: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed project. Prepared by Adam Toering, Historic Preservation Specialist Reviewed by Elicia Feasel, Historic Preservation Administrator PETITIONER COMMENTS: Commissioner Downs-Krostenko asked if the mason had addressed reconstructing the chimney in the same elevation, profile, and materials. Mr. Priebe stated that the contractor indicated the brick was crumbling and that they would match it as best they could. That he was surprised when he saw the completed work, but that the contractor indicated that it would resemble the original brick over time. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: N/A Commissioner Downs-Krostenko indicated that the brick appears to be `Common Chicago' brick, and that there are three or four kinds of it. It is only available through salvage, but there are people in the area who have access to it. She indicated she had the name of the contact for that material. If the mason went to a regular brick yard, they would not find something like this kind of brick. Had the property owner or the mason applied for a COA or building permit prior to the work being executed, this would have been discovered, and the elevation and profile changes could have been avoided as well. Commissioner Gelfinan asked Commissioner Downs-Krostenko could convey that information to staff for future use. Commissioner Andrews stated that she understood why the concrete cap had to be added to the top but was uncertain as to why the chimney had to be shortened as well. Commissioner Hertel indicated that the chimney is a character defining feature of the home. Commissioner Downs-Krostenko stated that it looks like the mason completed the project and said, "good enough", leading to the change in the elevation, the profile, and the material was not appropriately matched. Commissioner Hertel asked regarding the condition of the chimney. Commissioner Stalheim indicated that the appearance of the chimney is intentional. Specialist Toering indicated that this pattern of brick bonding is unique, and the brick is offset. The mortar squeezes out of the brick.