HomeMy WebLinkAbout2. Leeper Park_COA 2019-0109_PACKETSTAFF REPORT
CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR A
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
Date: 15 January 2019
Application Number: 2019-0109
Property Location: Leeper Park
Architectural Style/Date/Architect or Builder: Planned landscape/1897/City superintendent Herman Beyer;
Landscape Architect George Kessler
Property Owner: City of South Bend, Venues Parks & Arts
Landmark or District Designation: Local Landscape Landmark, Ordinance #8734-96 and National Register of
Historic Places, 6/15/2000
Rating: N/A
DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURE/ SITE: Leeper Park is the first planned public park in South Bend located
north of downtown and the medical district. Leeper Park is oriented east/west at the St. Joseph River, divided into
three sections, East, Central, and West, by Michigan Street and Lafayette Boulevard. The Eastern section was
originally established for the Water Works with the first construction on site being a network of thirty, six-inch
artesian wells.1 “The first land condemned for the future Leeper Park, in June of 1895, was meant to provide a
second artesian well field and pumping facility for the lively industries and town population which was growing
along the south bend of the St. Joseph River.”2 City superintendent Herman Beyer first influenced the design
including curvilinear paths, plantings, and water features. The 1911-1915 Parks and Boulevard system and the
Leeper Park Plan, designed by celebrated planner and landscape architect George Kessler, embodied early
twentieth century ideals grounded in the City Beautiful movement, connecting parks and boulevards as planned
elements of a coordinated city plan. Kessler’s Plan for Leeper Park included both formal and informal design
elements, adopting existing park features of the Beyer era through a skillful remodel. The association of the park
sections with different uses was a result of Kessler’s planning; the West section was deemed for active recreation,
the Central section as passive recreation, and the Eastern Section was adopted for its function as a Water Works but
also boasts a number of recreation-related features. While the Kessler Plan guided Leeper Park development for the
next decade, documentary evidence appears that only some elements of the Kessler design were actually installed.3
Sensitive extensions of Kessler’s Plan continued into the 1920s and 1930s and included Works Progress
Administration funded labor for several projects.4
Leeper Park East features include: the North Pumping Station, the water reservoir, multiple water well pumps,
Ziegler Performing Center with fixed bench seating, signage for the former Garden of Fragrance, the Navarre
Cabin, the foundation of the former Powell House, a non-functioning Comfort Station, a swing set/slide, the
Sunken (Rose) Garden, the island, and the Works Progress Administration retaining wall and a bridge to the island.
Leeper Park Central features include: West Lagoon (Duck Pond), concrete stairs on embankment, a well house, the
Edward B. Reynolds fountain, Lavender Labyrinth, memorials including trees, stones, and plaques.
Leeper Park West features include: backdrop of the former baseball diamond, tennis courts, a recreation building, a
parking lot, an odor garden, and raised vegetable gardens with adjoining paths.
1 Leeper Park Cultural Landscape Report, prepared by Westerly Group for the Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph County,
May 1998.
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid. 4 Malcolm Cairns, ASLA. “Leeper Park Historic District.” National Register of Historic Places Inventory/Nomination Form, NR-1411. South Bend,
St. Joseph County, Indiana, June 15, 2000.
ALTERATIONS:
Throughout
RMEs and COAs for tree trimming, removal, and installation have been approved under the guidance of the City
Forester.
RMEs and COAs for sidewalks have been approved.
Leeper Park East
RME 2017-0410 approved “This permit covers only Phase I of the project - drilling a pilot well. Phase II (drilling
the actual well and trenching in the piping) will require a separate COA.”
COA 2017-0306 approved installation of new stage and new audience seating, landscape beautification and lighting
for stage, new benches with concrete pad closer to stage.
RME 2016-1013 approved removal of brush and planting of willow tree near Rose Garden.
The Sunken (Rose) Garden with reflecting pool and statuaries were removed in the 1960s. RME 2017-1012
approved installation of two small concrete pads with two benches adjacent to Rose Garden. Benches to
match those approved through COA 2015-0302A. COA 2017-0228 approved installation of 8’ wide
crushed limestone walkway connecting the Michigan Street sidewalk with the Sunken Garden, bounded by
two, 42” wide flower beds, and irrigation system for entire garden. COA 2015-1002 approved “Within an
existing concrete curb (that will remain), the landscaping bed will be enhanced to mimic the reflecting pool
formerly within its boundary. New flower beds will be defined using new soil, compost and plantings. A
walkway of crushed limestone will pass through the beds. Additional half circle beds will be added to the
north and south of the concrete curb. The "three-fates" statues will be repaired pro-bono by a local artist,
and then placed into the center of the "pool" bed, where they were originally, in the same back-to-back-to
back style; and the one remaining "cherub" will be nearby, on a footing. That "cherub" will be duplicated
from the original, and the new statue also placed nearby in the "pool" bed.” COA 2015-0504A approved
restoration of Rose Garden and gravel path system by volunteers.
COA 2015-0908 approved “Bartlett Street Roundabout Project Description (114-032b). Project to construct a
roundabout at Bartlett and Michigan Street approved per all diagrams and documents submitted.
Encroachment to Leeper Park East will be limited to 0.57 acres and all trees removed will be replaced
within the park.”
The Garden of Fragrance no longer exists, but the signage remains. RME 2015-0422 approved “Rebuild/restack
low retaining wall currently located in Leeper Park next to Garden for the Blind. Matching flagstone has
been donated by Knepp Sand and Stone and Old Fort Building Supply; and follows material estimate made
by a representative of the SB Parks Department. The restacking of the flagstone wall will also require
digging away the dirt around loose blocks and backfilling afterwards.”
COA 2011-1103A approved “Replace the existing lift station on the south side of the North Pumping Station
driveway and relocate it to the north side of the driveway. Screen the new location with landscaping and
plantings. Rehabilitate the Garden of Fragrance Braille marker and boulder monument and install new
sidewalks and decorative paving. All per diagrams, plans and plant palette submitted and approved.”
Wading Pool was filled in and the pergola removed, 1970s.
Circa 1862 vernacular Powell House
Navarre Cabin moved to Leeper Park, 1904; relocated, 1916; relocated again to present site, 1954.
Zoo closed, and structures used for animals were demolished, 1913.
Leeper Park Central
COA 2017-0213B approved “Addition to Leeper Park of a garden labyrinth, 40'-0" diameter center, 80'-0" diameter
outer circle per submitted plans. Includes removal and replacement of existing trees specified in plans;
removal of DAR memorial tree NOT PERMITTED.”
COA 2013-0519 approved “Install a climber and merry-go-round at Leeper Park playground. (Replaces old pieces
which were removed.)”
The Mall/Formal Garden, an elongated adaptation of the Kessler design survived well into the 1960s. The Garden
and pedestrian walks became grown over, 1980s.
Tennis courts moved from Central to Eastern section, 1916.
1905 Bugbee Fountain removed, unknown date.
1907-08 East Lagoon (Lily Pond) became stagnant and was removed along with the rustic wooden bridge,
unknown date.
1907-08 West Lagoon (Duck Pond) was extensively remodeled including a change in configuration from a
naturalized shape to a near oval, 1980s and 1990s. The covered shelter and chain link fence are not original.
Only remnants of a path system were recorded by WPA, 1938.
1910 Reynold’s horse watering trough, relocated from downtown South Bend, 1937.
Fill added and installation of double flight of concrete steps along west bank of West Lagoon, 1916.
Carriage drives redesigned, unknown date.
Leeper Park West
COA 2015-0302A approved “Create a Garden in four sections totaling about 3000 sf including all plants; include
an 8 foot wide ADA standard concrete sidewalk-initially 500 feet long; one monument circle and 2
flanking garden observation/education pads to be added per diagram submitted. Install 8 +/- historic lights
of the style of Leeper Park East to be installed along the 8 foot wide walk: 1 on each side of the 3 bump
outs along the walk, 1 close to Lafayette and 1 close to the northwest corner end of the current phase of the
walkway. 8 +/- durable quality public benches; 4+/- umbrella tables near tennis court; opportunities for
public art along the garden walk. Subject to approval by the Parks Board. All the garden plant and
vegetable plant options to be agreed upon by Parks Department/Board, Madison School and HPC Staff to
conform to the Standards and Guidelines adopted for Leeper Park. Abstain from planting fruit trees at this
time.”
COA 2008-0306 approved installation of an “Odor Garden” with blower piping and underground odor control bed
to treat sewer gas. Surface odor control bed planted as flower garden. Area will be restored to grass if and
when the system is taken out of service.
COA 2007-0605B approved “Renovation of Tennis Courts, Pavement and Fence replacement, expansion of Court
pavement approximately 20' to South; removal of 17 trees in the South per Brent Thompson and replace
with 12 Cypress per Brent Thompson. Plant to the north of the fence 5 deciduous trees.”
A parking lot south of the Tennis Center was added during the Madison School renovation along with lighting
without COA, 1998.
The 1936 WPA shelter house was replaced with the present recreation building, 1970.
Fill added for installation of Riverside Drive, 1910 and 1938.
APPLICATION ITEMS: “Various improvements to Leeper Park. See Attachment A for a detailed list of
improvements.”
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT: Under the direction of Venues, Parks and Arts, the work proposed
to Leeper Park has been designed by Jonathon Mooney, RLA, LEED AP, Senior Landscape Architect with
Lochmueller Group, having expertise with historic landscapes and specific to George Kessler’s historic landscapes.
The Leeper Park Concept Plan presented in this application incorporates concepts from the 1998 Leeper Park
Cultural Landscape Report and draws heavily from George Kessler’s 1915 Plan, itself an overlay of the 1905 Beyer
Plan, to create a public space that celebrates Leeper Park’s historic integrity and functions for contemporary needs.
The 1996 Leeper Park Standards and Criteria have also been consulted. See Attachment A, Project Description for
additional context.
1. Improvements to internal pedestrian circulation
a. The proposed new paths will adaptively recreate the designed path system throughout Leeper Park,
reinstating connectivity between the three park sections, nearby neighborhoods, and to various features
within. New paths will be 5-feet to 8-feet wide, of standard concrete with no color additives, medium
broom finish. The final path layout may change slightly to avoid removal of large trees.
b. The intersection at Lafayette Boulevard and Riverside Drive will be reconfigured to eliminate excess
pavement, help calm traffic and shorten pedestrian crossing distance.
c. The existing historic steps need repaired or further study regarding replacement. The work proposed is
to replace in-kind using exact proportions/dimensions, using the following process to determine the
replacement specifications:
1. Take detailed field measurements, photos
2. Coordinate with concrete expert
3. Create detailed construction drawings
4. Contractor to gently clean existing steps to expose true surface conditions/colors
5. Take cores to preserve existing concrete properties
6. Require contractor to provide mock-ups of color, aggregate and finish to compare with original
2. Installation of a new playground
a. Relocating the playground consolidates active park uses to the Western Section allowing for restoration
of the historic passive nature of the Central Section. In the proposed location, south of the tennis courts,
the playground will be situated closer to parking and restrooms. See description and renderings for
additional detail.
b. An existing ball field backdrop will be removed.
c. Remove existing playground equipment in Central Section. Site will be re-seeded.
3. Installation of the Studebaker Electric Fountain and associated gathering space
a. Kessler’s Plan built upon Beyer’s original central formal garden design in the Central Section. An
elongated adaptation of Kessler’s design was installed during the WPA era and existed into the 1980s;
there do not appear to be any aspects existing today. This proposal will re-introduce the strong central
axis with a formal garden, with design influences such as the rectilinear layout with semi-circular edges
north and south.
b. The Studebaker Fountain will be the centerpiece to the reinstated formal garden. The former Bugbee
Fountain once existed in a nearby location. The concrete plaza is 75’ in diameter. The Studebaker
Fountain is 42’ in diameter. See description and renderings for additional detail. Approximately 110-
150 linear foot of existing brick storm sewer will be replaced with new ductile iron, encased in
concrete. Exact locations of two new manhole structures are to be determined.
4. Removal of the existing duck pond
a. The West Lagoon (Duck Pond) is a popular feature of Leeper Park that has existed for 112 years in the
same location. It has been extensively remodeled throughout those years and is unlikely to feature any
original materials (fence, concrete, covered shelter).
b. Natural habitats are more humane over unnatural spaces. Concerns for animal and environmental
welfare include malnutrition, dependency, disease, environmental degradation, water pollution,
increased hybridization, delayed migration, overcrowding, costly management efforts, and devaluation.
“The existence of duck ponds can no longer be considered a best practice for the environment or
wildlife.”5 See White Paper on Leeper Park Duck Pond.
c. Re-seed newly realized open lawn area. Soil borings and geotechnical engineering will determine the
most appropriate type of fill material to ensure the seamless integration of the topography and lawn
type.
5. Creation of a formal river overlook (concept)
a. The Overlook to the St. Joseph River will create a place for observing wildlife in its natural habitat.
6. Items to be presented at a future meeting include:
a. Overlook detail design
5 City of South Bend Venues Parks & Arts. White Paper on Leeper Park Duck Pond. 2018.
b. Planting design and trees
c. Site furnishings
d. Sign locations/design
e. Lighting
f. Future art nodes
g. Tabletop intersections
h. Future river viewing nodes
i. Future phases
STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES:
9.0 LANDSCAPES – STANDARDS AND CRITERIA FOR LEEPER PARK
9.1 Introduction
1. In these guidelines the verb Should indicates a recommended course of action; the verb Shall indicates those actions which
are specifically required to preserve and protect significant architectural elements.
2. The intent of these standards and criteria is to preserve the overall character and appearance of Leeper Park including its
spatial organization, topography, vegetation, circulation and features.
3. The standards and criteria acknowledge that there will be changes to the landscape and are intended to make the change
sensitive to the historic character of the landscape.
4. Each property will be separately studied to determine if a later addition(s) and/or alteration(s) can, or should, be removed.
5. Since it is not possible to provide one general guideline, the following factors that will be considered in determining whether
a later addition(s) and/or alteration(s) can, or should, be removed include:
a. Compatibility with the original property’s integrity in scale, materials, and character.
b. Historic association with the property.
c. Quality in design and execution of the addition/alteration.
d. Functional usefulness.
6. Recreational facilities which exist should be allowed to remain as long as they serve substantial community functions. In
some cases these features can be redesigned to be more compatible with the overall landscape.
7. Additions to existing recreational facilities shall not be allowed unless such additions make the facilities more compatible
with the overall landscape.
8. The development of additional facilities for active recreation or single purpose uses for limited user groups shall not be
allowed.
9. Proposals for special activities and events which cause significant impacts or require permanent or even semi-permanent
(seasonal) structures or facilities shall not be permitted.
10. The Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph County recommends that the work proposed to the
landscape be executed with the guidance of landscape professional with expertise with historic landscapes.
11. The land, streets, island(s), street lighting, park lighting, topography, vistas, vegetation, architectural elements, structures,
spatial organization, street furniture, sewer covers, electrical and water vault and/or manholes covers, parking areas are
subject to the terms of the landscape guidelines herein stated.
12. Items under Historic Preservation review include but are not limited to the following:
9.2 Spatial Organization (includes, Views, Vistas, Landscape Spaces, etc.)
Refer to Sections 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, 9.6, 9.7 and 9.8 for additional Standards and Criteria that may apply.
1. Views and vistas are among the most important aspects of a landscape, therefore, they should be maintained and preserved.
2. All views, vistas, landscape spaces located in the eastern section and central section of Leeper Park shall be preserved. All
views, vistas, landscape spaces located north and east and west of a line designated as the northern fence of the tennis courts
located in the western section of Leeper Park shall also be preserved. This shall include the island(s) located in the St.
Joseph River and the slough which lies between the island(s) and the mainland. All views, vistas, and landscape spaces shall
also include the entirety of the riverbank as well as the area lying between the roadway of Riverside Drive up to and
including the riverbank and cut stone wall along the riverbank.
3. Original or later contributing special organizational features shall be retained in their existing configuration and shall be
maintained through proper drainage, access and erosion control, pruning and removal of invasive vegetation or otherwise
using recognized horticultural and soil management practices.
4. Alteration of existing or addition of new spatial organizational features will be considered if they do not alter the basic
concept of the historic landscape design.
5. Deteriorated or missing spatial organizational features shall be replaced with features that match the original in form,
shape, color and texture.
6. When replacement of features is necessary, it should be based on physical or documentary evidence.
7. If using the same material is not technically or economically feasible, then compatible substitute materials may be
considered.
8. Important visual connections between spaces within the landscape shall be retained by maintaining vegetation, circulation
and topography features which contribute to those visual relationships.
9. The historic spatial and functional relationship of circulation systems, water features and structures shall be preserved by
maintaining the massing of adjacent vegetation, vistas, or other associated features.
10. Maintenance of removal or, and additions of vegetation materials and elements should consider maintaining existing or
intended vistas and spaces, screening intrusions, creating new spaces where appropriate and maintaining defined areas of
shade and sun.
11. The form and shape of individual spaces and their associated vertical element shall be retained in order to preserve the
historic relationships of the landscape. Examples include the relationship between open fields and hedgerows or the width
and length of an allee.
12. Moving or demolishing historic structures that would alter spatial and visual relationships in the landscape shall not be
allowed.
13. Construction of new structures that would alter historic spatial and visual relationships in the landscape shall not be
allowed.
14. Intrusive views or new construction may be screened with compatible fencing or plant material so long as the screening
would not detract from the historic character of the landscape.
9.3 Topography (includes the Shape, Slope, Elevation, Contour of landforms and Ground Plane, etc.) Refer to Sections 9.2, 9.4, 9.5, 9.8, 9.9
and 9.10 for additional Standard and Criteria that may apply.
1. All locations and items listed in 9.2.2 shall also apply to this section and shall be preserved.
2. Original or later contributing topographical features shall be retained in their existing configuration and shall be maintained through
proper drainage, access and erosion control, and recognized soil management practices.
3. Alteration of existing or addition to new topographical features will be considered if they do not later the basic concept of the
historic landscape design.
4. Natural features (e.g. rock outcroppings) which are integrated into the landscape shall be treated as part of the overall design and
shall be retained.
5. Deteriorated or missing materials or features shall be replaced with materials that match the original in form, shape, color and
texture.
6. When replacement of materials or features is necessary, it should be based on physical or documentary evidence.
7. If using the same material is not technically or economically feasible, then compatible substitute materials may be considered.
8. Whenever appropriate, plant materials, rather than structural materials should be used to solve erosion problems. Repair of WPA
island and slough stone construction projects is strongly encouraged.
9.4 Vegetation (includes Trees, Shrubs, Ground Covers, Hedges, Allees, Fields, Forests, Planting Beds, etc.)
Refer to Sections 9.2, 9.3, 9.5, 9.7, 9.8, 9.9, and 9.10 for additional Standards and Criteria that may apply.
1. Refer to Section 9.2.2 for items within this section which shall be preserved. Also included in this section shall be the diverse
variety of trees, shrubs, bushes and other vegetation which may or may not be indigenous to this region. List of such types of
vegetation can be in lists and inventories which were published in the annual reports of both the City of South Bend and the South
Bend Park Commissions from the years 1910 to 1940.
2. Original or later contributing vegetation materials and features shall be retained in their existing configuration and shall be
maintained through proper horticultural management practices.
3. Alteration of existing or addition of new vegetation materials and features will be considered if they do not alter the basic
concept of the historic landscape design.
4. Deteriorated or missing materials or features shall be replaced with materials that match the original in form, shape, color
and texture.
5. When replacement of vegetation materials or features is necessary, it should be based on physical or documentary evidence.
6. If using the same vegetation material is not technically or economically feasible, then compatible substitute vegetation
materials may be considered if they convey the same growth habit, form, foliage and bloom characteristics as the historic
plant.
7. Existing vegetation material shall be retained unless it is part of a later non-compatible design or is volunteer vegetation
inconsistent with the original design.
8. Consideration for removal of existing healthy vegetation materials and features will be given when it is in conflict with the
original design intent of the landscape, such as when an important vista has become overgrown or when plants have grown
out of scale with their intended purpose.
9. Maintenance of, removal of, and additions of vegetation materials and features should consider maintaining existing or
intended vistas and spaces, screening intrusions, creating new spaces where appropriate and maintaining defined areas of
shade and sun.
10. Invasive vegetation shall be removed whenever technically feasible and shall be replaced with appropriate vegetation
consistent with the original design of the park and with current factors such as security, ecological conditions, and wildlife
management practices.
11. Hazardous plants or portions of plants should be removed promptly.
12. Plants with diseases that are difficult or not practical to control or cure should be removed promptly to prevent their infection of
other plants.
13. Mutilated or distorted plants should be removed.
14. Plant replacements should be added on a schedule that will insure a continuity in the landscape design.
15. Existing vegetation shall be protected adjacent construction activities by fencing the root system prior to the start of
construction.
16. Future plantings of the main floral garden in the central section of the park shall be guided by the design of the main floral
garden as laid out by George Kessler in 1912.
9.5 Circulation (includes Roads, Paths, Parkways, Drives, Trials, Walks, etc.)
Refer to Sections 9.2, 9.5, 9.6, 9.8, 9.9 and 9.10 for additional Standards and Criteria that may apply.
1. The following shall be preserved: Riverside Drive, Lafayette Boulevard, Park Lane (Foote Street), Bartlett Street, the
Alleyway east of Michigan Street running north from Bartlett Street, all sidewalks, curbs, pathways around the duck pond
(west lagoon), stairways, pathways in and around the Sunken Garden, and the footbridge from the mainland to the island.
Alteration or addition of Roads, Paths, Parkways, Trails, Walks, etc. shall be based upon physical or historical
documentation of these items as they existed from 1910 to 1940.
2. Original or later contributing layouts of walks, roads, and paved areas shall be maintained.
3. Alteration of existing or addition of new circulation layouts will be considered if it can be shown that better site circulation
is necessary, and that the alteration does not alter the basic concept of the historic landscape design.
4. When replacement of circulation layouts is necessary, it should be based on physical or documentary evidence.
5. Original or later contributing circulation materials and features shall be retained and, if necessary, repaired by patching,
piecing-in or reinforcing the material or feature using recognized preservation methods.
6. Deteriorated or missing circulation materials and features shall be replaced with materials that match the original in size,
shape, color, profile, form, texture, and detail of installation.
7. If using the same material is not technically or economically feasible, then compatible substitute materials may be
considered.
8. Alteration of existing or addition of new circulation materials and features will be considered if they do not alter the basic
concept of the historic landscape design.
9. Consideration will be given to an alternate paving material if it can be shown that its properties will improve the original or
later contributing design concept.
10. When replacement of circulation materials or features is necessary, it should be based on physical or documentary
evidence.
11. Consideration for removal of existing circulation systems and features will be given when it is in conflict with the original
design intent of the landscape or when they are no longer appropriate to their intended purposes.
12. No vehicles unless of or approved by the South Bend Parks Department shall be permitted on any part of the park surface at any
time. Vehicles of American Electric Power and/or other vehicles of the City of South Bend, shall use predetermined routes to and
from their destination, when said travel would cause them to cross any area of the park which is not paved and designed for
vehicular traffic. Any damage caused by any vehicle, shall be repaired immediately to look as it did prior to said damage.
13. Encroachment of vehicles off the paved roadway of any area of the park shall not be permitted. Areas now used for vehicular
parking which are not part of the historical design of that park shall be removed.
14. Construction of any type within the park shall be done so as not to disturb any feature of the park. Sheets of plywood or other
approved material may need to be laid upon the surface of the park prior to construction equipment. Repairs which must match the
original historic design concept shall be made in any and all circumstances of damage.
9.6 Water Features (includes Fountains, Pools, Irrigation Systems, Ponds, Rivers, etc.)
Refer to Sections 9.11 B, C, and D regarding treatment of materials and features; and Sections 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, 9.7, 9.8 and 9.10 for
additional Standards and Criteria that may apply.
1. Features which shall be preserved include: the duck pond (West Lagoon), the water pond in the Sunken Garden, the slough
between the island and the mainland, all drinking fountains, pump houses, manhole covers, drainage grates, horse and dog
fountain and path of the St. Joseph River in relation to the park.
2. Original or later contributing water features shall be retained and maintained.
3. Existing water courses or bodies should not be altered. Consideration will be given to proposals that improve site drainage,
improve water quality, enhance the landscape design or improve wildlife habitat.
4. Alteration of existing or addition of new water features will be considered if they do not alter the basic concept of the
historic landscape design.
5. When placement of water features and their materials are necessary, it should be based on physical or documentary
evidence.
6. Original or later contributing water feature materials shall be retained and, if necessary, repaired by patching, piecing in,
consolidating or reinforcing the material using recognized preservation methods.
7. Deteriorated or missing water feature materials shall be replaced with materials that match the original in size, shape,
color, profile, form, texture, and detail of installation.
8. If using the same material is not technically or economically feasible, then compatible substitute materials may be
considered.
9. Alteration of existing or addition of new water features will be considered if they do not alter the basic concept of the
historic landscape design.
10. When appropriate from an ecological perspective, dredging of waterways shall be permitted as a means of retaining historic
waterways.
11. All wetlands shall be preserved.
12. All shorelines of water courses or bodies shall be protected from erosion in a manner in keeping with the basic concept of the
landscape design.
13. Consideration for removal of existing water features will be given when it is in conflict with the original design intent of the
landscape or when they are no longer appropriate to their intended purposes.
14. Some areas of Leeper Park are utilized for the pumping of water for the City of South Bend, and there exists both within the park
and the St. Joseph River and on the island(s) wells, well-houses and other water supply entities. Repairs that may be necessary to
existing services, or additions to existing services, or the sinking or additional new wells; all such work, installations and/or repairs
shall return the disturbed areas(s) of the park, island(s) and the St. Joseph River to conditions of the park as in that time period 1912
to 1940. Any new installations of any type may be considered if the alteration does not alter the basic concept of the historic
landscape design.
9.7 Furnishings and Objects (includes Benches, Lights, Signs, Drinking Fountains, Trash Receptacles, Fences, Tree Grates,
Flagpoles, Sculpture, Monuments, Memorials, Planters, Urns, etc.)
Refer to Sections 9.11 B, C and D regarding treatment of materials and features; and Sections 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, 9.6, 9.8, 9.9 and 9.10
for additional Standards and Criteria that may apply.
1. All items listed herein shall be preserved:
a. The Duck Pond (West Lagoon), including the Island in the lagoon, the Walls, Curbing, Fence, and Shelter House.
b. The Stone and Plaque of the DAR, with related Tulip and Gingko Trees.
c. The Concrete Stairway leading west southwesterly from the Duck Pond (West Lagoon).
d. The High Embankment on the west-southwest side of the Duck Pond (West Lagoon).
e. The Pump Houses, number 2 and 3.
f. The Edward B. Reynolds Horse and Dog Watering Fountain.
g. The Drinking Fountain in the south east portion of the central section of the park.
h. The central section of the park, the area of the large Floral Garden and Pathways as designed by George Kessler
in 1912.
i. All Sidewalks on Lafayette Boulevard, Riverside Drive, Park Lane (Foote Street), Bartlett Street and Michigan
Street.
j. The Retaining Wall on the western boundary of the western section of the park.
k. The Wall comprised of Cut Stone, which extended west-northwest and east-southeast from the southern approach of the
Leeper Park Bridge.
l. The Log Cabin known as the Navarre House, and the footings of the cabin/house which was burned down.
m. All Drinking Fountains located in the eastern section of the park and/or on the island(s).
n. The Sunken Garden on the eastern section of the park, along with all the Vegetation, Pathways, Stairs and the Fountain
and Statues.
o. The WPA walls and Sloughs(s) in the eastern section of the park and the adjoining St. Joseph River.
p. All Park Benches.
q. All Manhole Covers, Sewer Covers and Grates, and all Electrical Underground Vault and/or Raceway Covers.
r. The north/south alleyway east of Michigan Street, running north from Bartlett Street which used to run between Lot ‘A’
and Lots 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and part of 20 of the Rockstroh Addition.
s. All Plaques, Monuments, Sculptures, Memorials, Planters, Urns, Curbings, Roadways, Marker Stones, Sundials,
Well-Head Covers, Fences, Trellises, Pergolas, Pathways, and Trees.
2. Original or later contributing furnishings and objects, shall be retained and, if necessary, repaired by patching, piecing in,
consolidating or reinforcing the material using recognized preservation methods.
3. Deteriorated or missing furnishings and objects, materials, elements, features and details shall be replaced with materials
that match the original in material, size, shape, color, profiles, form, texture, configuration and detail of installation.
4. Alteration of existing or addition of new furnishings and objects will be considered if they do not alter the basic concept of
the historic landscape design.
5. When replacement of furnishings and objects and their materials is necessary, it should be based on physical or
documentary evidence.
6. If using the same material is not technically or economically feasible, then compatible substitute materials may be
considered.
7. Existing memorials, statues, monuments and fountains shall be carefully preserved and restored where necessary,
maintaining the integrity of the original material and design. The work shall be coordinated with the Historic Preservation
Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph County.
8. New furnishings and object should be designed using vandal resistant standards.
9. Location of signs shall be guided by a master plan.
10. Signs shall conform to a simple sign system.
11. Existing non-conforming signs should be removed.
12. All new monuments and fountains shall be placed so that they conform to and with the original historic landscape design of
the park and park system.
9.8 Structures (includes Walls, Terraces, Arbors, Gazebos, Follies, Playground Equipment, Picnic Shelters, Plazas, Greenhouse,
Steps, Bridges, Dams, Buildings, etc.)
Refer to Sections 9.11 B and D regarding treatment of materials and features; and sections 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, 9.6, 9.7, 9.9 and 9.10 for
additional Standards and Criteria that may apply.
1. The general intent is to preserve the original or later contributing structures that enhance the historic landscape.
2. Refer to Sections 9.2.2 and 9.7.1 of structures, elements and materials that need to be preserved such as wall, terraces,
arbors, gazebos, follies, playground equipment, picnic shelters, plazas, greenhouses, steps, bridges, dams, building, etc.
which shall be preserved.
3. Original or later contributing structures, shall be retained and, if necessary, repaired by patching, piecing in,
consolidating or reinforcing the material using recognized preservation methods.
4. Deteriorated or missing structures, materials, elements, features and details shall be replaced with materials that
match the original in material, size, shape, color, profiles, form, texture, configuration and detail of installation.
5. When replacement of structures is necessary, it should be based on physical or documentary evidence.
6. If using the same material is not technically or economically feasible, then compatible substitute materials may be
considered.
7. New addition/alterations to the landscape (such as: parking lots, comfort stations, buildings, etc.) shall be as
unobtrusive as possible and preserve and original or later contributing landscape features.
8. Removal of non-historic structures from the existing landscape is encouraged.
9. Structures shall be protected from arson and other acts of vandalism through proper monitoring procedures and methods such
as; permanent installation of smoke detectors, alarms, or other security systems, or temporarily boarding up windows and
openings.
10. No building(s) shall be erected in the central section of the park; the western section of the park, north of the northern fence to
the tennis courts; the eastern section of the park, west of the rear set-back of the north Pumping Station, or in the area north
and east of the Log Cabin.
9.9 Archeology
Refer to Section 9.11 B and C, and D regarding treatment and materials. Refer to Sections 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, 9.6, 9.7 and 9.8 for additional
Standards and Criteria that may apply.
1. The landscape should be surveyed for potential archeological sites prior to the beginning of any construction project.
2. Known Archeological site(s) shall be protected during any construction project.
3. Disturbance of the terrain within the landscape shall be kept to a minimum so as not to disturb any unknown archeological
materials.
4. All planning, any necessary site investigation, or data recovery shall be conducted by professional archeologist.
9.10 Accessibility
Refer to Sections 9.11 B, C and D regarding treatment of materials. Refer to Sections 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, 9.6, 9.7, and 9.8 for additional Standards
and Criteria that may apply.
1. A three-step approach is recommended to identify and implement accessibility modification that will protect the integrity
and historic character of the property.
a. Review the historical significance of the property and identify character-defining features;
b. Assess the property’s existing and required level of accessibility;
c. Evaluate accessibility options within a preservation context.
2. Because of the complex nature of accessibility, the Historic Preservation Commission will review proposals on a case by
case basis. The Commission recommend consulting with the following document which is available from the Commission
office: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resources, Preservation Assistance Division;
Preservation Brief 32, “Making Historic Properties Accessible” by Thomas C. Jester and Sharon C. Park, AIA.
9.11 Architectural Materials
A. General
The Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph County recommend that work proposed to the materials outlined in
Sections B, C, and D be executed with the guidance of a professional building material conservator.
1. Removal of the speakers atop Pump House Number 3 is encouraged.
B. Masonry (Brick, Stone, Terra Cotta, Concrete, Stucco, and Mortar)
1. [intentionally left blank]
2. Original or later contributing masonry materials, feature, details, surfaces and ornamentation shall be retained and, if necessary,
repaired by patching, piecing-in, or consolidating the masonry using recognize preservation methods.
3. Deteriorated or missing masonry materials, features, details, surfaces and ornamentation shall be replaced with material and
elements which match the original in material, color, texture, size, shape, profile and detail of installation.
4. When replacement of materials or elements is necessary, it should be based on physical or documentary evidence.
5. If using the same material is not technically or economically feasible, then compatible substitute materials may be considered.
6. Original mortar shall be retained.
7. Deteriorating mortar shall be carefully removed by hand-raking the joints.
8. Use of mechanical saws and hammers shall not be allowed.
9.Repointing mortar shall duplicate the original mortar in strength, composition, color, texture, joint size, joint profile and method of
application.
10.Sample panels of raking the joints and repointing shall be reviewed and approved by the staff of the Historic Preservation
Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph County.
11.Cleaning of masonry is discouraged and should be performed only when necessary to halt determination.
12.If the building is to be cleaned, the mildest method possible shall be used.
13.A test patch of the cleaning method(s) shall be reviewed and approved on site by staff of the Historic Preservation Commission of
South Bend and St. Joseph County. Test patches should always be carried out well in advance of cleaning (including exposure to all
seasons if possible.)
14.Sandblasting (wet or dry), wire brushing, or similar abrasive cleaning methods shall not be permitted. Doing so changes the visual
quality of the material and accelerates deterioration.
15.Waterproofing or water repellant are strongly discouraged. These treatments are generally not effective in preserving masonry and
can cause permanent damage. The Commission does recognize that in extraordinary circumstances their use may be required to
solve a specific problem. Samples of any proposed treatment shall be reviewed by the Commission before application.
16.In general, painting masonry surfaces shall not be allowed. Painting masonry surfaces will be considered only when there is
documentary evidence that this treatment was used at some point in the history of the property.
C. Wood
1.[intentionally left blank]
2.Original or later contributing wood surfaces, features, details and ornamentation shall be retained and, if necessary, repaired by
patching, piecing-in, consolidating or reinforcing the wood using recognized preservation methods.
3.Deteriorated or missing wood surfaces, features, details and ornamentation shall be replaced with material and elements which
match the original in material, color, texture, size, shape, profile and detail of installation.
4.When replacement of materials or elements is necessary, it should be based on physical or documentary evidence.
5.If using the same materials or elements is necessary, it should be based on physical or documentary evidence.
6.Cleaning of wooden elements shall use the mildest method possible.
7.Paint removal should be considered only where there is a paint surface deterioration and as part of an overall maintenance
appropriate protective coatings. Coatings such as paints help protect the wood from moisture and ultraviolet light and stripping the
wood bare will expose the surface to the effects of weathering.
8.Damage or deteriorated paint should be removed to the next sound layer using the mildest method possible.
9.Propane or butane torches, sandblasting, water blasting, or other abrasive cleaning and/or paint removal methods shall not be
permitted. Doing so changes the visual quality of the wood and accelerates deterioration.
10.Repainting should be based on paint serration studies. If an adequate record does not exist repainting shall be done with the colors
that are appropriate to the style and period of the building.
D. Architectural Metals (Cast Iron, Steel, Pressed Tin, Copper, Aluminum, and Zinc)
1.All metal materials, features, details and ornamentation of the buildings in the park shall be preserved. This also includes all metal
parts of all fountains, monuments, memorials, plaques, street lights, drinking fountains, etc.
2.Original or later contributing metal materials, features, details, and ornamentation shall be retained and, if necessary repaired by
patching, splicing or reinforcing the metal using recognized preservation methods.
3.Deteriorated or missing metal materials, features, details and ornamentation shall be replaced with material and elements which
match the original in material, color, texture, size, shape, profile and detail of installation.
4.When replacement of materials or elements is necessary, it should be based on physical evidence or documentary evidence.
5.If using the same material is not technically or economically feasible then compatible substitute materials may be considered.
6.Cleaning of metal elements either to remove corrosion or deteriorated paint shall use the mildest method possible.
7.Abrasive cleaning methods, such as low pressure dry grit blasting, may be allowed as long as it does not abrade or damage the
surface.
8.A test patch of the cleaning method(s) shall be reviewed and approved on site by staff of the Historic Preservation Commission of
South Bend and St. Joseph County. Test patches should always be carried out well in advance of cleaning (including exposure to all
seasons if possible.)
9.Cleaning to remove corrosion and paint removal should be considered only where there is deterioration and as part of an overall
maintenance program which involved repainting or applying other appropriate protective coatings. Paint or other coatings help
retard the corrosion rate of the metal. Leaving the metal base will expose the surface to accelerated corrosion.
10.Repainting should be based on paint seriation studies. If an adequate record does not exist repainting shall be done with colors that
are appropriate to the style a and period of the building.
The Landscapes- Specific Standard and Criteria was financed in part with funds from the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the
Interior, through the Massachusetts Historical Commission, Secretary of State, Michael Joseph Connolly, Chairman, and adopted for use by
the Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph County, Indiana, by permission of the Environment Department, City of
Boston, Massachusetts, by Michael A. Cannizzo, Staff Architect, 1996.
SITE VISIT REPORT:
January 15, 2019
RE: Leeper Park Site Visit (Central Section)
Observations made during visit
-Embankment area near steps has eroded
-Washed out embankment causing tree roots to become exposed along hill
-The poured concrete curbs along steps have washed out underneath and cracked as a result
-Steps themselves appeared to be intact but have are starting to pitch northwesterly
-Trees
-Along Riverside Drive
-Near duck pond, two canopy trees are uprooting and have broken up the path between the pond
and the street. These trees have lost limbs either naturally or have been cut.
-Two other canopy trees along riverside are now gone and have been replaced with recently planted
trees
-At least five larger trees have come down either through storms or disease
-New trees were installed after those original trees came down
-Horse trough appears to be in stable condition with base intact
-Small well house appears to be in stable condition with some minor cracks in foundation.
Please see photographs in digital file for reference.
Steve Szaday
Preservation Inspector
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the overall project and concepts with conditions
that:
(1a)
(1b)
(1c)
the final path layout makes considerations for any memorial dedications (trees, stones, plaques, etc.).
final path layout, including any memorials determined to require an adjustment to the location or
replacement otherwise, be submitted to Staff for final Administrative Approval.
the final intersection design makes considerations for any memorial dedications (trees, stones, plaques,
etc.).
final intersection design, including any memorials determined to require an adjustment to the location or
replacement otherwise, be submitted to Staff for final Administrative Approval.
final specifications, pending results of process 1 through 6, be submitted to Staff for final Administrative
Approval.
(3)final design/construction documents for Studebaker Electric Fountain and associated gathering space be
submitted to Staff for final Administrative Approval.
(4c) final design for former Duck Pond, pending results of soil boring and geotechnical engineering, be
submitted to Staff for Administrative Approval.
(5)detailed specifications for the Overlook be submitted for Commission review.
Elicia Feasel
Historic Preservation Administrator
Satellite Imagery
Diagram 1 – Satellite imagery from 2017
Diagram 2 – Satellite imagery from 2017
Diagram 3 – Satellite imagery from 2006
Photos
Photo 1 - (1a) memorial tree in vicinity of formal garden/fountain
Photo 2 - (1a) memorial tree in vicinity of formal garden/fountain
Photo 3 - (1a) memorial tree in vicinity of formal garden/fountain
Photo 4 - (1b) memorial tree in vicinity of intersection adjustment
Photo 5 - (1b) memorial tree in vicinity of intersection adjustment
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
OF SOUTH BEND AND ST. JOSEPH COUNTY
County—City Building, South Bend, IN 46601
http://www.southbendin.gov/government/department/community-investment
Phone: 574/235.9371 Fax: 574/235.9021
Email: hpcsbsjc@southbendin.gov
A Certified Local Government of the National Park Service Elicia Feasel, Historic Preservation
Administrator
OFFICE USE ONLY>>>>>>DO NOT COMPLETE ANY ENTRIES CONTAINED IN THIS BOX<<<<<<OFFICE USE ONLY
Date Received: ____________________ Application Number: ____________—___________________________________
Past Reviews: YES (Date of Last Review) _____________________________ NO
Staff Approval authorized by: _________________________________________________________ Title: __________________________
Historic Preservation Commission Review Date: __________________________________________________________________________
Local Landmark Local Historic District (Name) ________________________________________
National Landmark National Register District (Name) _____________________________________
Certificate Of Appropriateness:
Denied Tabled Sent To Committee Approved and issued: _____________________
Address of Property for proposed work: ________________________________________________________________________
(Street Number—Street Name—City—Zip)
Name of Property Owner(s): __________________________________________________ Phone #: ______________________
Address of Property Owner(s): _______________________________________________________________________________
(Street Number—Street Name—City—Zip)
Name of Contractor(s): _______________________________________________________ Phone #: ______________________
Contractor Company Name: __________________________________________________________________________________
Address of Contractor Company: ______________________________________________________________________________
(Street Number—Street Name—City—Zip)
Current Use of Building: _____________________________________________________________________________________
(Single Family—Multi-Family—Commercial—Government—Industrial—Vacant—etc.)
Type of Building Construction: ________________________________________________________________________________
(Wood Frame—Brick—Stone—Steel—Concrete—Other)
Landscape New Replacement (not in-kind) Demolition Proposed Work: (more than one
box may be checked)
Description of Proposed Work: _______________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Owner e-mail: __________________________________ and/or Contractor e-mail: ___________________________________
X _______________________________________________ and/or X _______________________________________________
Signature of Owner Signature of Contractor
By signing this application I agree to abide by all local regulations related to project and to obtain a Building Department Permit, if applicable.
—APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS ARE LISTED ON REVERSE SIDE—
APPLICATION FOR A — CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
Certificate of Appropriateness application
Written description of the project (materials to be used, scale, dimensions, construction methods, altera-
tions, etc.)
Materials to be used (Supplemented with manufactures’ brochures and specifications)
Site Plan showing existing buildings & structures and proposed project (for new construction, additions,
paths, terraces, patios, fences)
Photographs
Blueprints/Drawings
Application fee - $20.00 TO ENSURE YOUR APPLICATION CAN BE PROCESSED IN A TIMELY MATTER WITHOUT DELAY,
PLEASE INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTATION WHEN APPROPRIATE:
1Historic Leeper Park Improvements - 2019
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Attachment
A
Leeper Park reflects the characteristics of an early 20th century urban park combining the concepts of a rural retreat,
preservation and enhancement of natural scenery, opportunities for public gathering, and space for active recreation.
Parks of this era frequently combined formal elements such as public gardens and promenades with more informal
and pastoral spaces. From the 1998 Leeper Park National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) nomination, “. . . early
20th century parks were not static elements of the urban landscape; they were often overlays of sequential designs.”
This concept is proven by the history of the Leeper Park and, looking forward, by the proposed improvements included
in this application.
The modern visioning process for Leeper Park began in 1996 with the extensive research published by J. Edward Talley,
followed by the 1998 Cultural Landscape Report, the 1998 NRHP nomination, development of site specific preservation
guidelines, and the 2017 riverfront and trail framework plan. The 2018 Leeper Park Concept Plan presented in this
application incorporates concepts from the above documents and draws heavily from George Kessler’s 1915 plan, itself
an overlay of the 1905 Beyer Plan, to create a public space that celebrates Leeper Park’s historic integrity and functions
for contemporary needs.
This application for a Certificate of Appropriateness centers around five critical design components, currently funded
and intended to be part of the first phase of construction (see map on next page for the Phase 1 project area):
1. Improvements to internal pedestrian circulation
2. Installation of a new playground
3. Installation of the Studebaker Electric Fountain and associated gathering space
4. Removal of the existing duck pond
5. Creation of a formal river overlook (concept)
These elements are discussed in detail on the following pages and are supported by a combination of plans,
photographs, narrative and additional imagery.
2Historic Leeper Park Improvements - 2019
Leeper Park is bounded by the park’s property line on the west, the St. Joseph River on the north and east, and Park
Avenue and Bartlett Street on the south.
This application requests a Certificate of Appropriateness for the following Phase 1 elements:
1. Improvements to internal pedestrian circulation
The proposed internal pedestrian includes broad, sweeping paths in combination with the creation of a formal central
garden element. In the western section, the existing concrete path at the southern end of the property will remain in
place. Additions include an east/west walk, south of the tennis courts, providing access to the proposed playground,
parking and existing community center, and a north extension to Riverside Drive providing more direct access to
the park from the Chapin Park neighborhood. In the central section the broadly arced paths are adapted from the
character defining path network of the 1915 Kessler plan and, combined the re-creation of the central formal garden,
restores this area of the park as Leeper’s “front yard”.
Proposed Design
•Concrete paths, 5-feet to 8-feet in width depending on location
•Standard concrete will be used with no color additives, medium broom finish on all surfaces
•Historic concrete steps in the center section will be placed using exact measurements and proportions.
See attached imagery and narrative for further detail
Reference
•1905 Beyer Plan: included a strong central axis
•1915 Kessler plan: significantly enhanced the design of the 1905 central axis
•Leeper Park Cultural Landscape Report
▫Pages 46, 53, 54: recommendation for the restoration of the formal garden
▫Formal garden configuration apparent in 1938, 1951 and 1965 aerial photography
•NRHP Nomination
▫Section 7, Page 2: “An additional formal garden was developed in 1919, extending the axis of MainMichigan StreetRiverside Dr
i
v
e
Ri
v
e
r
s
i
d
e
D
r
i
v
e
Lafayette BoulevardBartlett Street
Park Lane
Phase 1 Project Area
Future Phase
3Historic Leeper Park Improvements - 2019
Street into the park.” ▫Section 7, Page 3: “The park was designed to provide views of the river from a number of locations. Vistas include the views approaching the park from Main Street, where there is a view of the central garden . . .” ▫Section 8, Page 9, Kessler Design Principles: “Path alignments feature sweeping, complex radial curves . . . “ ▫Section 8, Page 10, Statement of Significance: “The Kessler and earlier Beyer designs for Leeper Park provided the quintessential components of the City Park: . . . . a system of curvilinear paths for strolling, . . . and formal landscape features such as gardens and broad terraces for gatherings.”• Standards and Guidelines for Leeper Park ▫Item 9.2.5: “Deteriorated or missing spatial organization features shall be replaced with features that match the original in form, shape, color and texture.” ▫Item 9.5.3: “Alteration of existing or addition of new circulation layouts will be considered if it can be shown that better circulation is necessary and that the alteration does not alter the basic concept of the historic landscape design.” 2. Installation of a new playground
A new playground will be installed south of the existing tennis courts. The existing play area in the central section will be removed. The relocation of the playground will consolidate active uses in the western section of the park allowing for the restoration of the historic passive nature of the central section. The new play area will be adjacent to existing parking, the community center and restrooms.
Proposed Design
• Equipment: multi-component structures, climbing apparatus, bouncing/spinning equipment, and swings• Materials: powder coated metal, molded plastic, poured-in-place rubber surfacing• Color scheme: to be determined and presented at a later meeting• Open, multipurpose play lawn located south of the playground
Reference
• 1915 Kessler Plan: located play in the western section, consolidating active park uses in the area with tennis• Leeper Park Cultural Landscape Report ▫Page 48: “ . . . we strongly recommend that the playground which is presently in the central sector be moved to the western part of the park. This will restore George Kessler’s original land use intent to the central and western sections.”• NRHP Nomination ▫Section 7, Page 4, Intrusions into the District: “Playground in . . .central section [is] not located where
this type of facility was historically located.”
3. Installation of the Studebaker Electric Fountain and associated gathering space
A commitment has been made by the City of South Bend to locate the restored Studebaker Electric Fountain in Leeper
Park. Restoration of the fountain is being spearheaded by The Studebaker Fountain Committee, a committee of
the South Bend Parks Foundation. Improvements include installation of the historic Studebaker Electric Fountain, a
fountain mechanical vault located beneath the fountain, and a concrete plaza surrounding the fountain. The fountain
will become the centerpiece of the restored formal garden.
Proposed Design
• Restored fountain components: cast metals with a verdigris finish
• Plaza material: concrete, no color additives, medium broom finish
4Historic Leeper Park Improvements - 2019
Studebaker fountain details:
• Surviving elements of the Studebaker Electric Fountain: ▫Upper seven foot diameter basin with recessed locations for light bulb sockets to be attached ▫Cast iron stand that sits in the basin ▫Topmost figure with opening beneath the bowl in her hands and remnants of a light bulb socket remain ▫Support column for upper basin with three female figures surrounding it ▫Three of four cast zinc dolphins with riders ▫One of the eight turtles• Re-created elements: ▫Lower ten foot diameter basin and the column supporting the basin ▫Box shaped element with four large curled corners surmounted by the figures of four boys and two swans ▫One dolphins with rider ▫Seven turtles. ▫Twelve cast iron wall sections each involving a wall element, a top rail along the upper edge of the wall element, a corner element and a cap for each corner element that from the fountain pool.• Fountain lighting will be restored in locations per the original design. New lighting will be computer software controlled LED and fiber optic fixtures capable of both white or color lighting. Locations: ▫One round globe hanging under the bowl held by the topmost figure ▫Beneath the rim of the seven foot diameter upper basin ▫Near the top of the column supporting the upper basin ▫Each of the twelve pool wall corners on the inside of the wall
Precedent
• Photographic Documents: historic imagery and postcards show the now removed Bugbee Fountain located in the central section of the park• Leeper Park Cultural Landscape Report ▫Page 8: “ 1905. “Bugbee Fountain was installed in the central section of the park.”
4. Removal of the existing duck pond
The discussions and outreach associated with the removal of the duck pond have been numerous and a separate white paper has been developed outlining the basis for the removal of the duck pond. This park upgrade solves a major issue that cities across the country are struggling with. Numerous studies show that duck ponds aren’t healthy for the wildlife nor the environment. This isn’t a case of maintenance neglect nor a need for a cleaning regiment. Overcrowding, disease, landscape degradation, hybridization, water pollution, and other issues prevail. Organizations such as zoos and aquariums have had to adjust how they think and treat animals through the years; parks systems are no different. The 2018 Leeper Park Plan includes the creation of a river overlook (see item 5 below) which will continue to allow people to view and connect with water fowl in a safer, healthier, more natural environment for the community and the birds.
The proposed plan will fill in the existing duck pond. The project includes soil borings and geotechnical engineering to determine the most appropriate type of fill material. Fill will be placed to blend seamlessly into the existing park topography and the area will be planted with lawn, becoming additional open and flexible space for passive park activity and special events such as the Leeper Park Art Fair.
Reference
• White Paper on Leeper Duck Pond ▫Waterfowl at artificial feeding sites are often found to suffer from poor nutrition due to lack of natural food sources and feeding competition ▫Hand feeding can cause birds to become concentrated in small urban areas that are incapable of
5Historic Leeper Park Improvements - 2019
supporting large numbers of birds making birds dependent upon humans for food. Some birds can
become aggressive and may need to be removed. An aggressive adult goose can easily knock down a
child or senior citizen, and geese can fly up to 50 mph
▫Lowered nutrition and overpopulation allow disease to spread more quickly
▫Concentration of birds contributes significantly to water pollution in the form of fecal coliform
bacteria
▫Feeding alters normal migration patterns of waterfowl affecting bird mortality
▫Overcrowding results in damage to the surrounding park landscape due to overgrazing and creates
unsanitary conditions for park users and birds
• Standards and Guidelines for Leeper Park
▫Item 9.6.3: “Consideration for the removal of existing water features will be given when it is in
conflict with the original design intent of the landscape or when they are no longer appropriate to
their intended purposes.”
5. Creation of a formal river overlook (concept approval)
The creation of a river viewing overlook will provide park users with unobstructed views of the St. Joseph River and will
continue to allow people to view and connect with water fowl in a safer, healthier, more natural environment for the
community and the birds.
The request at this time is for approval of the overlook concept. The specific design of the overlook including structural
details, elevations, and final materials will be presented at a later meeting.
Proposed Design
• Location: north end of the formal garden providing views north to the historic Northshore Triangle
neighborhood, east to the Michigan Street Bridge and west along the river
• Curved northern edge to reflect curved details found in the formal garden elements (fountain plaza,
lavender garden) and the proposed path system
Leeper Park Concept Development
Project Area
Pumping Station
Lavender
Garden
Tennis
Courts
Michigan Street (US 933)Park Lane
Bartlett Street
Bartlett Street
Ri
v
e
r
s
i
d
e
D
r
i
v
e
Riverside Dri
v
e
Lafayette BoulevardReservoirMain StreetRose
Garden
Duck Pond
Phase 1 Project Area
Future Phase
Lavender
Garden
Tennis
Courts
Michigan Street (US 933)Park Lane
Bartlett Street
Riverside D
ri
v
e
Lafayette BoulevardMain StreetDuck Pond
Leeper Park Concept Development
Photo Location Map
8
9 10
111718
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
12
13
14
15 16
6Historic Leeper Park Improvements - 2019
Looking north from existing path toward parking, tennis courts
1
Area of proposed new playground
2
7Historic Leeper Park Improvements - 2019
Existing playground
3
Existing playground
4
8Historic Leeper Park Improvements - 2019
Existing steps
5
Labyrinth and lavender garden
6
9Historic Leeper Park Improvements - 2019
West edge of labyrinth, historic slope in the background
7
Existing pump house, lawn area
8
10Historic Leeper Park Improvements - 2019
Existing path along river
9
Existing park entrance at southwest corner of the Michigan Street bridge
10
11Historic Leeper Park Improvements - 2019
West side of Michigan Street, looking south
11
View along west side of tennis courts
12
12Historic Leeper Park Improvements - 2019
View from northwest corner of tennis courts
13
Duck Pond
14
13Historic Leeper Park Improvements - 2019
Duck Pond
15
Duck Pond
16
14Historic Leeper Park Improvements - 2019
View toward bridge
17
View west
18
Leeper Park Concept Development
Historic Context
Beyer Plan, 1905
NOTES:
• Curvilinear paths
• Strong north/south central axis
Leeper Park Concept Development
Historic Context
Kessler Plan, 1915 NOTES:
• Active uses including play and tennis located in the west
section
• Sweeping, arced path network
• Formal garden and strong north/south central axis
• Use of tree lines to accentuate paths
• Informal planting throughout park
Leeper Park Concept Development
Historic Context
Leeper Park Cultural Landscape Report, 1998
Standards and Criteria for Leeper Park
NOTES:
• Play relocated to west section
• Recreation of a strong central axis
• Adaptive recreation of Kessler-esque path system in center section
Leeper Park Concept Development
Historic Context
Leeper Park Framework Plan, 2016 NOTES:
• Play relocated to west section
• Recreation of a strong central axis
• Adaptive recreation of Kessler-esque
path system
0 30 60 120
Leeper Park Concept Development
Overall Park Concept
Play (2)
Formal
Garden (1)
Studebaker
Fountain (3)
Overlook (5)
Future Art Node
Future River Viewing Node Michigan Street (US 933)Park Lane
Bartlett Street
Riverside Dri
v
e
Lafayette BoulevardProposed Tabletop Intersection
Proposed
Paths (1)
Duck Pond
Removal (4)
Future PhaseProposed
Paths (1)
NOTE: Numbers correspond to the COA application items listed in
the project description
0 30 60 120
Leeper Park - Proposed Phase 1
Plan
Play
Proposed
Paths
Formal
Garden
Studebaker
Fountain
Existing
Paths
Overlook
Michigan Street (US 933)Park Lane
Bartlett Street
Riverside Dri
v
e
Lafayette BoulevardSt. Joseph River
NOTES:
•New pedestrian circulation
•Relocate playground south of tennis courts
•Re-introduce strong central axis, formal garden in
center of park
•Remove Duck Pond
•Install Studebaker Fountain and plaza
•Create large river overlook
Lawn
Lawn
Leeper Park - Proposed Phase 1
Playground Concept
Proposed
Concrete Path
Existing
Path
Multipurpose Field
Planting
0-5 Play Area
Poured
In-place
Rubber
Surfacing
5-12 Play Area
0-12 Play Area
Tensile Fabric
Shade Sail (6)
Shade Tree 6’ Bench
0 10 20 40
NOTES:
• Relocated playground south of tennis courts - closer to
parking and restrooms
• Consolidates active park uses to the west end
• Pods of age related equipment
Existing ParkingLafayette BoulevardPHASE 1 ELEMENTS:
• All walks
• Planting and trees- final design to be presented at
future meeting
• Lighting - final design to be presented at future meeting
• Site amenities (seating, shade sails) - final design to be
presented at future meeting
• Play areas:
8’8’6’
290’107’Match Existing
Leeper Park - Proposed Phase 1
Central Section
Overlook Existing Path
Studebaker
Fountain
Proposed
Concrete Path Potential Refuge Island
(Concept in Development)
Lavender
Garden
Formal Garden
0 15 30 60
SEE ENLARGED
PLAN
NOTES:
• Removal of duck
pond, now open
lawn area
• Re-introduce strong
central axis and
formal garden in
center of park
• Final path layout
may change slightly
to avoid removal of
large trees
• The intersection of
Riverside Drive and
Lafayette Boulevard
will be reconfigured
to eliminate excess
pavement, help calm
traffic and shorten
pedestrian crossing
distance
Lafayette BoulevardMichigan Street (US 933)Park Lane
Existing Pump House to
Remain
Riverside Dri
v
e
Historic
Steps to be
Rebuilt in Exact
Proportions, See
Photos37’28’Existing Curb
Proposed Curb
Lawn
Lawn
ITEMS TO BE PRESENTED AT
FUTURE MEETING:
• Planting design
• Site furnishings
• Sign locations/
design
• Lighting
8’8’8’8’8’8’8’
Leeper Park - Proposed Phase 1
Formal Garden
Studebaker
Fountain
6’ BenchesCast Stone Railing
Labyrinth Custom Avenue Bench
Limestone
Finials
Interpretive Sign -
Labyrinth
Interpretive Sign - Kessler and the
Leeper Park Plan
Interpretive Sign -
Duck Pond
6’ Benches
Historic
Steps to be
Rebuilt in Exact
Proportions
Interpretive
Sign - River
0 10 20 40
NOTES:
• Removal of duck pond
• Fountain location requires
replacement of approximately
100-150 linear feet of existing
brick storm sewer with ductile
iron, encased in concrete
• Requires two new manhole
structures, exact locations to be
determined
90’8’5’8’
13’
Formal Planting
Formal Planting41’-10”37’-6”Shore Line
Existing Pump House to
Remain
Manhole
Manhole 28’ITEMS TO BE PRESENTED AT FUTURE
MEETING:
• Planting design
• Site furnishings
• Sign locations/design
• Lighting
• Overlook design
Lawn
Historic steps to be rebuilt using exact
proportions/dimensions, see additional
information
Leeper Park - Proposed Phase 1
Studebaker Fountain
Historic images of the Studebaker Fountain Proposed Finish
Leeper Park - Proposed Phase 1
Historic Steps
Top tier- good condition, consistent rise and run
RECOMMENDATION:
• Replace steps using historic dimensions
First landing - air condition, significant crack through
landing and walls
Top tier- cracking Top tier- good condition, consistent rise and run
Middle tier- fair condition, consistent rise and run Middle tier - spalled area 1 Middle tier - spalled area 2 Middle landing - crack in wall, both sides
Bottom tier - fair crack through steps continuing into
landing, top step 1” lower rise
Bottom tier - crack at base of top step continues
through wall, entire landing and step has sunk 1”
Bottom landing - multiple cracks,
unevenness, ADA issue
PROCESS:
• Take detailed field measurements, photos
• Coordinate with concrete expert
• Create detailed construction details
• Contractor to gently clean existing steps to
expose true surface conditions/colors
• Take cores to preserve existing concrete
properties
• Require contractor to provide mock-ups of
color, aggregate and finish to compare with
original
Leeper Park - Proposed Phase 1
Studebaker Fountain Location
Looking north from Park Lane Looking north from the labyrinth
Looking east Looking south
Leeper Park - Proposed Phase 1
Studebaker Fountain Location
Entering the park from Michigan Walk along the top of the historic slope
Looking southeast Area of historic steps
Leeper Park - Proposed Phase 1
Amenities to be Presented at Future Meeting
Proposed benches to be used throughout park (outer Avenue
paths excepted), powder coated black finish
Existing pole lights (Left - Riverside Drive in Chapin Park, Right - Riverside Drive near
Island. Proposed path lighting in park to consist of concrete pole and pole top fixture
similar in color and style to existing lights
Tabletop intersections raise the entire intersection or crossing area to provide barrier
free access (no ramps required). Use of this type if intersection will provide traffic
calming by reducing vehicular speed around the park.
Cast stone railing style at overlook, standard light gray
limestone finish to be used
Historic images of Leeper Park’s central “avenue” including
high backed benches. These benches will be recreated along
the outer Avenue paths
Images of potential limestone
accents in the formal avenue
and the existing horse trough at
the lavender garden entrance
This latest concept also involves installing
three decks along an enhanced Leeper
Riverwalk to overlook the river, creating
space for observing wildlife in its natural
habitat. No ducks or geese are harmed, but
returned to their native areas.
A NOTE FROM VENUES PARKS & ARTS ON LEEPER PARK DUCK POND
As you’re likely aware, the City of South Bend’s Venues Parks & Arts Department has been leading a
several month process to reimagine and upgrade our riverfront parks and trails, alongside an aggressive
plan to upgrade many neighborhood parks and community centers. This will set a new standard in
excellence and accessibility for some of our city’s most valuable resources. It’s an exciting time for the
park system and the community is showing extremely broad support for these long-overdue upgrades.
Despite the overwhelming enthusiasm to invest in our city’s natural spaces, the conversation has
recently shifted to focus on one very specific topic, the Leeper Park Duck Pond. A recently released
concept for Leeper Park involves transforming
the duck pond into an area that will house the
historic Studebaker Fountain once it’s restored.
These decisions are not mutually exclusive of one
another, but they do seem to complement one
another. This latest concept also involves
installing three decks along an enhanced Leeper
Riverwalk to overlook the river, creating space for
observing wildlife in its natural habitat. No ducks
or geese are harmed, but returned to their native
areas. Additionally, a regional waterfowl rehabilitator will be on hand to ensure successful transitions,
which may also include adoption of some the domesticated animals.
This park upgrade solves a major issue that cities across the country are struggling with. Numerous
studies show that duck ponds aren’t healthy for the wildlife nor the environment. This isn’t a case of
maintenance neglect nor a need for a cleaning regiment. Overcrowding, disease, landscape degradation,
hybridization, water pollution, and other issues prevail. Organizations such as zoos and aquariums have
had to adjust how they think and treat animals through the years; parks systems are no different.
As a community, we must do better in our responsibility of stewardship for the local wildlife.
We recognize that residents love the duck pond because of the experiences they have created there.
We understand the value of having a place where families make memories and share rituals with
children and grandchildren over the years. We appreciate how people enjoy watching the changing
seasons and sharing in the growing of the ducklings and goslings. We don't want to take any of that
away. We are striving to create upgraded place-making for those kinds of experiences. Our plans
endeavor to allow people to experience all those connections to nature and more - in a safer, healthier,
more natural environment for the community and for the birds.
Additionally, we’ll continue to be in consultation with the DNR, water and soil experts, zoologists, our
Ecological Advocacy Committee, the Audubon society, the Historic Preservation Committee,
environmentalists, and waterfowl experts. We are still several months away from a decision point in this
matter and would like to stress that there is no urgency here.
We look forward to working together as a community to take care of our native animals, our natural
resources, our shared spaces and shared history.
*Conceptual plan for review and discussion
HISTORIC VALUE OF THE PARK
One of the things we’ve been most concerned with throughout the planning process is maintaining true
to the spirit of historic plans. Some of this work is unfolding even now. As approved by Historic
Preservation Commission and in conjunction with a STEAM partnership involving Memorial Hospital
and Madison School, a host of historic upgrades have been completed at Leeper Park. This includes the
following:
• The introduction of paths and significant landscaping features that were envisioned in early 20th
century Leeper plans.
• A soon-to-open lavender labyrinth.
• Restoration of the Ziegler outdoor performing arts center just north of the Leeper rose garden.
• Support of efforts to “Resurrect the Roses”, investing in the volunteer-led initiative to return the
historic rose garden to its former glory.
• Refurbishing of the widely popular tennis courts, with plans to further upgrade the facility.
• Support of a community-led initiative to restore the historic Studebaker Fountain and propose to
place it in Leeper Park, not far from where the Bugbee Fountain stood in the early 1900’s.
There is a deep sense of history in Leeper Park and the surrounding neighborhoods that nurtures a
significant amount of civic pride. This is something we never want to see fade.
Visible symptoms of poor nutrition and advanced
stages of starvation are often seen at artificial
feeding sites. For example, waterfowl may have
drooping wings or may lose their ability to fly.
ANIMAL WELFARE & ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
Over the past several decades, society’s understanding of and compassion for animals has evolved. What
was once acceptable in zoos and aquariums is no longer thought to be humane. This is the same in our
parks system. Across the country, cities are forgoing unnatural spaces in favor of more organic habitats.
Our research on the topic of duck ponds specifically as it relates to animal and environmental welfare
includes:
Malnutrition1
Through evolution, wildlife species have developed skills to obtain food that contains the
essential nutrients needed to survive, reproduce and live a healthy life. These skills help
maintain a balance between animals and their natural habitat. This balance is compromised by
hand feeding, which is physically harmful to birds and is one of the primary causes of
malnutrition.
It would seem that providing
food for ducks and geese would
make them healthier. However,
this is not the case. Waterfowl
at artificial feeding sites are
often found to suffer from poor
nutrition. In natural settings,
waterfowl seek and feed on a variety of nutritious foods such as aquatic plants, natural grains, and
invertebrates. Many of the items commonly used to feed waterfowl (bread, corn, popcorn, etc.) are
low in protein and are very poor substitutes for natural foods. 5
Natural foods are also widely scattered. Ducks and geese are able to find these foods and eat them in
relative seclusion. At artificial feeding sites, competition for each scrap or kernel is high. Some ducks
and geese (usually the youngest) are unable to compete for handouts.
Visible symptoms of poor nutrition and advanced stages of starvation are often seen at artificial
feeding sites. For example, waterfowl may have drooping wings or may lose their ability to fly.
Malnutrition leads to:
• Low energy and muscle deterioration.
• Development of deformed wings in young birds.
• Loss of flight later in life.
• Lowered ability to avoid predation.
• Decrease in successful reproduction.
• Lowered life expectancy.
Dependency3
Waterfowl, particularly mallards and Canada geese will congregate in areas with abundant food and
space. Unfortunately, hand feeding can cause birds to become concentrated in small urban areas that
are incapable of supporting large numbers of birds. The birds then become dependent upon humans
for food and can become nuisance animals. Some birds can become aggressive and may need to be
removed.
Geese are territorial birds and will not hesitate to protect their nest and eggs from a human or house
pet they see as a threat. An aggressive adult goose can easily knock down a child or senior citizen, and
geese can fly up to 50 mph. An aggressive goose will hiss at you and rear its head and then perhaps
charge.
Geese will fly up and hit a human, cat or dog in the face. This is especially likely if the goose has nested
in a place near human traffic, including a parking lot or shrubbery near a building.
Diseases generally not transmissible in a
wild setting find overcrowded and
unsanitary conditions very favorable.
Fed ducks and geese behave differently. They
become more aggressive and eventually lose their
wariness of humans. Some will not survive because
they can’t compete.
Artificial feeding often attracts birds to human habitats, parking lots, fast-food restaurants, and
retention ponds, where they are more subject to accidental death. Natural cover, which can provide
protection from bad weather and predators (even dogs and cats), is often lacking at these feeding
sites.
Waterfowl can rapidly become conditioned to, and dependent on, handouts. Fed ducks and geese
behave differently. They
become more aggressive and
eventually lose their wariness of
humans. Some will not survive
because they can’t compete.
Many will lose the quality which
endears them to most of us,
their wildness.
Dependence upon humans for food causes:
• Loss of their natural fear of humans, which creates aggressive behavior.
• Concentration of birds near highways and airports, potentially causing motor vehicle
and airplane accidents.
• Overpopulation of small wetlands and ponds.
• Delay or halting of migration to natural wintering or nesting sites.
Disease2
Lowered nutrition and overpopulation allow disease to spread more quickly, potentially infecting
thousand of birds with fatal diseases such as Avian Cholera, Duck Plague, Avian Influenza and Avian
Botulism. Although these diseases have always existed in waterfowl populations, the risks from the
diseases increase when populations become concentrated at feeding sites.
When ducks and geese feed on scattered corn or bread, they eat in the same place where they
defecate. Not healthy. In addition, large concentrations of waterfowl would facilitate the spread of
disease. Also not healthy. Diseases generally not transmissible in a wild setting find overcrowded and
unsanitary conditions very favorable.
An infected bird may spread the disease to many other birds by infecting the water supply. When the
birds are scattered over a large area this does
not pose a serious problem. However, when the
birds are bunched close together, their chances
of contracting disease increase and the result
may be disastrous.
Canada goose feces contain disease-causing
organisms which include salmonella, giardia and cryptosporidium. While there are no proven links of
human illness from exposure to the droppings from Canada Geese, some dogs seem to be
particularly susceptible to giardia. You should keep your dog from snacking on goose droppings
while out on walks.
Most waterfowl die-offs in the past 10 years have involved artificial feeding:
• 2,000 mallards and black ducks were killed in an outbreak of Duck Virus Enteritis in Central
New York.
• Another fatal disease, Aspergillus, occurs when food is scattered too liberally. It piles up
and becomes moldy.
• In Cheektowaga, New York, hundreds of ducks were killed in an outbreak of Avian Botulism
at a feeding site.
Over-grazed and badly-eroded lawns, golf courses,
and school playing fields are often the result of
overcrowding. Grassy areas such as ball fields and
golf courses can become unsanitary and unusable.
In areas where waterfowl congregate to feed,
E-coli counts can swell to levels that make the
water unsuitable for recreation or other
activities.
As a direct consequence of the concentration
of this organic matter, water quality suffers
from the excess nitrogen that subsequently
runs off the land during the usual storm
events.
Environmental Degradation 2
Waterfowl naturally congregate in wetlands, when and where natural foods are plentiful. However,
when hand feeding occurs, the over-concentration of birds may ultimately cause overgrazing and
degradation to the landscape.
Feeding attracts birds in
unnatural numbers, beyond
natural food and water
supplies, and frequently in
numbers beyond what people
will tolerate. Over-grazed and
badly-eroded lawns, golf
courses, and school playing fields are often the result of overcrowding. Grassy areas such as ball fields
and golf courses can become unsanitary and unusable. Some parks have been forced to close down
until goose droppings could be cleaned up, which can be quite costly.
High concentration of birds cause:
• Overgrazing of vegetation, leading to soil erosion.
• Degradation of the landscape, making it undesirable for other species and unsightly for
humans.
• Unsanitary conditions due to large quantities of bird feces.
Water Pollution1
People will often feed Canada geese or ducks at the local pond or lakeside beach. This not only causes
a nuisance situation with birds begging
for and stealing food, but also
contributes significantly to water
pollution in the form of fecal coliform
bacteria.
As a direct consequence of the
concentration of this organic matter,
water quality suffers from the excess nitrogen that subsequently runs off the land during the usual
storm events. Too many nutrients in the water then leads to an overgrowth of algae, called an “algae
bloom,” which blocks sunlight from entering the water and, thereby, adversely affects fish and other
organisms in the aquatic environment.
Vegetation around the immediate feeding site is also impacted, because the overabundant waterfowl
pull up the grass, trample the banks and
otherwise damage the plants in
adjacent habitat. In areas where
waterfowl congregate to feed, E-coli
counts can swell to levels that make the
water unsuitable for recreation or other
activities.
Feeding the ducks and Canada geese can:
• Cause them to become a nuisance by begging and stealing food and garbage.
• Can cause unnatural amount of water contamination, leading to algal blooms, and the
death of fish.
If the artificial feeding is stopped in time,
ducks and geese can quickly adapt to
finding natural foods and will follow their
companions north.
Artificial feeding often attracts birds to
human habitats near roads and public areas
where they are more subject to accidental
death or disfigurement.
Increased Hybridization1
At many feeding sites, domestic geese have interbred with Canada geese, further compromising the
wild population. Locally at the Leeper Park Duck Pond, it is evident that residents have abandoned
domestic ducks at the site. This furthers the hybridization issue and creates an unnatural scenario
where the animals are no longer able to able to survive in natural environments.
Delayed Migration 2
Feeding alters normal migration patterns of waterfowl by shortening or even eliminating them.
Ducks, reluctant to leave in the winter, may not survive sudden cold. If the artificial feeding is
stopped in time, ducks and geese can quickly adapt to finding natural foods and will follow their
companions north. In West Haven,
Connecticut, 30 swans died from
starvation at an artificial feeding site
during the harsh winter of 93–94.
Meanwhile, over 800 swans survived
nearby on natural food.
Overcrowding in Unnatural Sites1
Feeding attracts birds in unnatural numbers, beyond natural food and water supplies, and frequently in
numbers beyond what people will tolerate. Over-grazed and badly-eroded lawns and parks. Grassy
areas such as ball fields and golf courses can become unsanitary and unusable. Maintenance costs for
cleaning and keeping these popular gathering areas aesthetically pleasing become high.
Artificial feeding often attracts birds to human habitats near roads and public areas where they are
more subject to accidental death or disfigurement. Natural cover, which can provide protection from
bad weather and predators is often lacking at these feeding sites.
Costly Management Efforts1
Many damage-avoidance techniques such as chemical repellents, fencing, or noise makers are costly
and may even be useless once animals lose their fear of humans. At times, it is necessary to destroy
nuisance waterfowl because of the
damage they cause.
Devaluation1
From treasure to nuisance... wildlife
managers recognize that the public’s
perception of the value of wildlife is
often reduced when numbers swell. When any wildlife population exceeds the number that can be
naturally supported by available habitat, this can polarize the public and exaggerate conflicts between
landowners who suffer damage and those who visit the site to feed the geese and ducks.
The existence of duck ponds can no longer be considered a best practice for the environment or wildlife.
Keeping the pond, in any improved or existing
condition, troubles involving overcrowding,
malnutrition, inbreeding, migratory patterns, and
animal welfare ethics would continue to exist.
This isn’t a conversation about maintenance standards or even what to feed the ducks. In places like the
Leeper Park duck pond, the evolved situation is only partially solved by enhanced landscaping, additional
upkeep, and new public policies. The only scenario we can condone the creation of artificial spaces to
house and feed wildlife is one that is under constant supervision of trained professionals such as a zoo,
aquarium, or farm. Even so, these environments must be created in a way that promotes the health and
well-being of the animals in the most natural environments possible. Unless it’s done in a very controlled
manner, the pastime of feeding wildlife
for amusement is one that must come to
a stop. Despite the nutritional value of a
particular feed or food product,
dependency on human feeding causes
migratory issues, overpopulation,
overfeeding and a suite of health-related
problems. Keeping the pond, in any improved or existing condition, troubles involving overcrowding,
malnutrition, inbreeding, migratory patterns, and animal welfare ethics would continue to exist. This
would result in the department having to implement additional, and presumably unpopular
activities. These include strict enforcement of no-feeding policies, a reallocation of departmental
resources away from other priorities, a reduction of the park’s greenspace, and wildlife management
techniques such as relocation, egg depredation, or controlled animal killings.
FEEDBACK AND MORE INFORMATION
The concept is now available for review and commentary. We remain committed to opportunities for
residents to become educated and weigh in on this topic.
One way to do so is on the website at www.riverfrontparksandtrails.com or at a public community meeting
at the NNN Community Center on June 14th at 6:00 p.m. located at 109 Portage Ave.
We have already gathered a significant amount of information from these sources and would encourage
people to become educated on this topic.
1. "Stop Feeding Waterfowl." Stop Feeding Waterfowl - NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation.
New York State, n.d. Web. 07 June 2017. <http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7001.html>.
2. McRuer, Dave, MSc, DVM, Dipl. ACVPM. Consequences of Feeding Waterfowl in Public
Parks (n.d.): n. pag.Www.wildlifecenter.org. Wildlife Center. Web.
<http://wildlifecenter.org/sites/default/files/Consequences-of-feeding-wild-ducks-in-public-
parks.pdf>.
3. Palus, Shannon. "Don't Feed the Waterfowl." Audubon. Audubon, 14 July 2016. Web. 07 June
2017.
<http://www.audubon.org/news/dont-feed-waterfowl>.
4. "Indiana Department of Natural Resources." DNR: Solutions. DNR, n.d. Web. 07 June 2017.
<http://www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/3002.htm>.
5. "Please Don't Feed Waterfowl." Please Don't Feed Waterfowl — Audubon Society of Portland.
Audobon Society of Portland, n.d. Web. 07 June 2017.
<http://audubonportland.org/wcc/urban/waterfowl>.
6. "Don't Feed the Ducks." Mass Audubon. Mass Audobon, n.d. Web. 07 June 2017.
7. <http://www.massaudubon.org/learn/nature-wildlife/birds/don-t-feed-the-ducks>
See Appendix A for additional information on water quality at Leeper Park Duck Pond.
Account Number:84038 Page:1 of 4
Soil Test Report
Reported To Sample Information Customer Information
Report Number F17160-0127CITY OF SOUTH BEND LEEPER DUCK PONDReport Date 6/13/2017321 E WALTER ST Lab Number 33621SOUTH BEND, IN 46614 Sample ID OUTSIDE
To Be Grown TREES
Analysis Results
Soil Test Rating
Analysis Result Very Low Low Medium High Very High
Organic Matter, %4.7 QQQQQQQQQQQQQ
Phosphorus, ppm P (Bray-1 Equiv.)51 QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ
Potassium, ppm K 61 QQQQQQQQ
Magnesium, ppm Mg 250 QQQQQQQQQQQQQ
Calcium, ppm Ca 2400 QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ
Sodium, ppm Na 12 QQQ
Cation Exchange Capacity, meq/100g 14.3 QQQQQQQQQQQQQ
pH 7.5 QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ
Soluble Salts (1:2), mmho/cm 0.1 QQQ
Sulfur, ppm S 9 QQQQQQQQQQQQQ
Zinc, ppm Zn 34.2 QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ
Iron, ppm Fe 48 QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ
Manganese, ppm Mn 49 QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ
Copper, ppm Cu 4.4 QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ
Boron, ppm B 1.8 QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ
Annual Nutrient Requirement
Pounds per 100 Square Feet Pounds per 1,000 Square Feet
Nitrogen Phosphorus Potassium Magnesium Sulfur Nitrogen Phosphorus Potassium Magnesium Sulfur
Lime Lime(N) (P2O5) (K2O) (Mg) (S)(N) (P2O5) (K2O) (Mg) (S)
00.30.00.30.00.0030300
Suggested Fertilizer Application
NPK Annual Application RateFertilizer Description
Grade lbs per 100 sq. ft. lbs per 1,000 sq. ft.
Product 12-0-12 Phosphorus Free Fertilizer 2.5 OR 25.0
OR0.0 0.0
Comments
Use the fertilizer listed above or another of similar NPK analysis. Broadcast the recommended amount
evenly around the drip line of the trees in the late fall or early spring. Avoid application after July 1st since
late growth is more susceptible to winter injury.
The soil pH is high (alkaline). Some species such as oaks and maples may show chlorosis (yellowing) of the
See Fact Sheet #10, Interpretive Guide, located on our website, for an explanation of soil test results.
Appendix A
Account Number:84038 Page:2 of 4
Soil Test Report
Reported To Sample Information Customer Information
Report Number F17160-0127CITY OF SOUTH BEND LEEPER DUCK PONDReport Date 6/13/2017321 E WALTER ST Lab Number 33621SOUTH BEND, IN 46614 Sample ID OUTSIDE
To Be Grown TREES
leaves. This condition is difficult to correct in established trees. If trees are chlorotic, application of iron or
manganese may improve color.
See Fact Sheet #10, Interpretive Guide, located on our website, for an explanation of soil test results.
Account Number:84038 Page:3 of 4
Soil Test Report
Reported To Sample Information Customer Information
Report Number F17160-0127CITY OF SOUTH BEND LEEPER DUCK PONDReport Date 6/13/2017321 E WALTER ST Lab Number 33622SOUTH BEND, IN 46614 Sample ID ISLAND
To Be Grown TREES
Analysis Results
Soil Test Rating
Analysis Result Very Low Low Medium High Very High
Organic Matter, % 1.2 QQQQQQQQ
Phosphorus, ppm P (Bray-1 Equiv.) 314 QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ
Potassium, ppm K 124 QQQQQQQQQQQQQ
Magnesium, ppm Mg 140 QQQQQQQQ
Calcium, ppm Ca 2650 QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ
Sodium, ppm Na 22 QQQ
Cation Exchange Capacity, meq/100g 14.8 QQQQQQQQQQQQQ
pH 7.5 QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ
Soluble Salts (1:2), mmho/cm 0.2 QQQ
Sulfur, ppm S 12 QQQQQQQQQQQQQ
Zinc, ppm Zn 38.0 QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ
Iron, ppm Fe 81 QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ
Manganese, ppm Mn 51 QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ
Copper, ppm Cu 3.5 QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ
Boron, ppm B 0.7 QQQQQQQQQQQQQ
Annual Nutrient Requirement
Pounds per 100 Square Feet Pounds per 1,000 Square Feet
Nitrogen Phosphorus Potassium Magnesium Sulfur Nitrogen Phosphorus Potassium Magnesium Sulfur
Lime Lime(N) (P2O5) (K2O) (Mg) (S) (N) (P2O5) (K2O) (Mg) (S)
00.30.00.00.00.0030000
Suggested Fertilizer Application
NPK Annual Application RateFertilizer Description
Grade lbs per 100 sq. ft. lbs per 1,000 sq. ft.
Product 20-0-0 Ammonium Sulfate 1.5 OR 15.0
OR0.0 0.0
Comments
Use the fertilizer listed above or another of similar NPK analysis. Broadcast the recommended amount
evenly around the drip line of the trees in the late fall or early spring. Avoid application after July 1st since
late growth is more susceptible to winter injury.
The soil pH is high (alkaline). Some species such as oaks and maples may show chlorosis (yellowing) of the
See Fact Sheet #10, Interpretive Guide, located on our website, for an explanation of soil test results.
Account Number:84038 Page:4 of 4
Soil Test Report
Reported To Sample Information Customer Information
Report Number F17160-0127CITY OF SOUTH BEND LEEPER DUCK PONDReport Date 6/13/2017321 E WALTER ST Lab Number 33622SOUTH BEND, IN 46614 Sample ID ISLAND
To Be Grown TREES
leaves. This condition is difficult to correct in established trees. If trees are chlorotic, application of iron or
manganese may improve color.
See Fact Sheet #10, Interpretive Guide, located on our website, for an explanation of soil test results.