Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecember 1991AGENDA OF THE R ppE EGULAR MONTHLY MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVNTEON COMMISSION Regular Monthly Meeting County Conference Room 7:30 p.m. 7th Floor, County/City Building December 16, 1991 I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Public Hearing A. Lincolnway East Historic District: Proposed Amendment B. Certificates of Appropriateness 1. 814 Arch Avenue -- LHD 2. 519 Edgewater Drive -- LHD 3. 621 Lincolnway East -- LHD 4. 1154 Lincolnway East -- LHD 5. 325 W. North Shore Drive -- LHD IV. Regular Business A. Approval of Minutes --November 18, 1991 B. Treasurers Report --November, 1991 C. Correspondence D. Committee Reports 1. C of A -- (Staff Approvals) a. 1028 E. Wayne Street -- LL la. C of A -- (Enforcement) a. 805 Arch Avenue -- LHD b. 1501 E. Wayne Street -- LHD 2. Budget & Finance 3. Legal 4. Historic Districts a. Monroe Park Proposed Historic District: First Reading 5. Historic Landmarks 6. Public Relations & Community Education 7. Personnel 8. Staff Reports a. Bimonthly Report V. Old Business a. Proposed Maintenance Standards Vi. New Business VII. Hearing of Visitors Viii. Announcements & Miscellaneous Matters IX. Adjournment Monthly Meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission December 16, 1991 7th Floor, County -City Building 7:30 p.m. I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7:40 p.m. II. Roll Call Members Present: Mrs. Joanne Sporleder, Mrs. Janeanne Petrass, Mrs. Martha Choitz, Mrs. Jean Dennen, Mr. Jed Eide, Mr. Bill Welsheimer, Mr. John Oxian--President, Mrs. Aladean DeRose-- City Attorney, Mr. Fred Holycross--Director, Mr. Jim Pastor --Survey Manager, Ms. Sue Booker -- Surveyor. Members Absent: Mr. Herb Herendeen, Mr. Odell Newburn. Also Present: Mr. Nelson C. Shafer (LWE), Mr. Robert E. Shafer (LWE), Ms. Bonnie C. Strycker (LWE), Mr. Jerry Hubner (LWE), Mr. Jerry Janosik (LWE), Mrs. Evelyn Janosik (LWE), Mr. Dale A. Brink (LWE), Mr. John Paskewitz (LWE), Mrs. Ruby Paskewitz (LWE), Mr. William Cochrane (owner, 519 Edgewater), Mr. Frank Yeandel (owner, 325 W. North Shore Dr.), Mr. Joseph MacHatton (owner, 621 Lincolnway East), Mr. Todd Zeiger (Monroe Park). III. Public Hearing A. Lincolnway East Historic District --Bill 64-91. Mr. Oxian asked the petitioners from the Lincolnway East historic district to tell the commission why they wished to secede from the district. Mr. Nelson Shafer, estate controller for Delbert and Mabel Shafer (1402, 1404, 1406, and 1412 LWE), spoke first. He said he was speaking for the section of the district east of Vernon Street; he had signatures from 17 of the 18 property owners there. He said none of these individuals had originally signed an agreement to belong to the district. No proper notification had been issued when the district was formed. He said the district standards made it difficult for owners to sell their property. Further, living within the standards was unreasonably costly. He challenged the commission to prove that these owners had ever voted for the district in the first place, and said "we want out of it." He said he believed the district had not been administered consistently. He cited a case in which an owner, Mrs. Buss, had lost chances to sell her property because the commission had refused to let her sell. He felt this woman should be compensated for her loss. Also, he considered it unfair to impose standards on homeowners; they should be allowed to do as they wished with their own property. He concluded by accusing Mr. Oxian of setting a poor example of historic preservation, and offering to distribute photographs of Mr. Oxian's own property. Mr. Oxian said the commission had kept complete records of the votes taken when the district was formed. He also denied that the commission had ever told Mrs. Buss not to sell her property. He also said that the property Mr. Shafer had criticized did not belong to him. Mr. Brink, owner of 1352 Lincolnway East, then spoke. He said he had bought his property from the Veteran's Administration, not then realizing it was in a historic district. He had begun re -siding the building to improve the property. In the midst of the work, the commission had stepped in and stopped the re -siding. Also, he said, he had lost two bids to sell the property, and offered to show the contracts. These losses he ascribed to the district. Next to speak was Mr. Paskewitz of 1342 Lincolnway East. He objected to the runaway shelter, saying it had been put in the district without the permission of the homeowners. The residents, he said, had been vandalizing a fence belonging to Mrs. Buss. He wanted the commission to do something to stop them. Mrs. Evelyn Janosik of 1520 Ottawa Court then spoke. She conceded that she had not suffered personally because of the district, but felt this was because she was affluent enough to abide by the standards. Her neighbors were not all so well-off, and could not afford these standards. Further, she said it was not right to impose standards so strict that people actually lost their property. (To support this statement, she cited the case of the previous owners of 1352 Ottawa Court, whose mortgage had been foreclosed). She said she considered the district "a definite hardship" for the residents. Mr. Oxian said the previous owners of 1352 Ottawa Court had never even applied for a Certificate of Appropriateness. Any hardship they had suffered had other causes. Mr. Robert Shafer, who had drafted the petition for secession and submitted it to Councilman Soderberg, then spoke. He said he only wished to delete the two - block area between Leer and Vernon streets from the district; he had no interest in the rest of it. He compared the historical quality of these two blocks with that of the rest of the district. Citing Commission ratings from the summary report, he indicated the relatively low historical value of the houses, mostly of which were heavily altered. He cited two cases of hardship. Mr. Brink, he said, had spent an extra $5000 bringing the siding on his property up to standards. Mrs. Buss had been barred from demolishing a deteriorated greenhouse on her property. He mentioned a 1987 Supreme Court ruling which put into question the Commission's right, as a regulatory agency, to dictate to property -owners the kinds of repairs they can make. He said the Commission might find it easier to approve the secession than to argue the case in court. He questioned the worth and availability of tax credits and funding that come with membership in a historic district. Mr. Holycross stated that the entire district was eligible for tax credits. Mr. Shafer said no one in the district had applied for these benefits; no one wanted them. Homeowners could not get tax credits. Investors could but they were not interested. He repeated the arguments that: 1) historic alterations were expensive and 2) 17 of the 18 property -owners in the two -block area had signed the petition to secede. Mr. Oxian said only 8 certificates of appropriateness in this two -block area were on file; all had been granted. He had the list with him. A complete record of all C of A's had been kept, as was legally required. Further, any opinion Mr. Shafer had regarding the value of tax credits was opinion only, not fact. Mr. Brink claimed that owners neglected repairs because they were discouraged by the high cost of meeting standards. Mr. Oxian told Mr. Brink that he had been penalized for violating procedures; he had applied for neither a building permit nor a C of A when he contracted to side his building. Mr. Holycross then presented the staff report on the proposed secession. This concluded with an unfavorable recommendation for Bill 64-91 (See addendum #1). Mr. R. Shafer said it appeared the unfavorable recommendation had already been made; why, then, have a public hearing at all? Mr. Holycross assured him that what he had just read was only a staff recommendation; the Commission had not yet made a recommendation. Mr. Shafer then asked for proof that residents of the two -block area had ever voted for the district; Mr. Holycross agreed to furnish the information. Mrs. Sporleder then made a number of points. She said the speeches so far had shown a great deal of misinformation and she wondered where it had come from. Most of the complaints she had heard, she said, were based on groundless fears. It seemed to her that no one had attempted to use the benefits offered by a historic district. Preservation commissions administer districts declared by ordinance in much the same way as zoning laws are administered. The district was intended for the greater economic good of all participants. Public hearings had been duly held to allow residents to agree on what standards were important to them. She conceded that more information about the benefits of a historic district should, perhaps, have been supplied. She asked for a list of prospective buyers who had turned down Mrs. Buss's property because it was in the district. Mr. Brink's problem, she said, could have been avoided if he had followed correct procedures. Mrs. Buss could demolish her greenhouse, if she got the Commission's approval; they were not interested in preserving it. Finally, she pointed out that the Commission never mandates action; its task is to cooperate with district property owners and help them to interpret and apply district standards. Usually the procedures ran smoothly. Mr. Nelson asked for a description of the benefits of historic districts. Mrs. Sporleder named investment tax credits, which are for certified renovations of investment properties. Mrs. Janosik mentioned a grant program for which she had recently applied. The program, administered by the Building Department, was intended to help property owners meet code standards. Mr. Oxian said he knew of the program, and said the Housing Development Program administered it. To the best of his knowledge, it was for investors only. Mr. N. Shafer concluded that homeowners realized no advantages from the district. Mr. Oxian described steps he had taken to get property tax breaks for homeowners in the district. Mrs. Sporleder said appropriate renovations improve the quality of the neighborhood and are thus of value to everyone. Mr. R. Shafer argued the complex and inconsistent nature of the buildings in the district and wondered how a district of such variety could be consistently administered. Mrs. Sporleder answered that the monthly meeting was designed to resolve such problems, and to allow flexible and individual consideration of every case. Mr. Shafer said the district had been tried for seven years and the residents had decided they wanted out. Since they had established the district by ordinance, he felt they should be able to dissolve it by ordinance. Mrs. Sporleder said the residents of the district had established the district for themselves. it was "their district." Mr. Pastor pointed out a clause allowing liaison committees to review the standards every five years and read the relevant paragraph from the guidelines book. Mr. Oxian explained the existing procedures for electing a liaison committee in the district, ways that procedure might be changed, and the liaison committee's duties. He said these duties had been neglected. It emerged that the two -block area had no official representative. Mrs. Choitz then described the many efforts she had made as district chairperson to work with the district's residents. Every household, she said, had been repeatedly informed of meetings. The standards had been written based on input from the owners at the meetings. She said she had kept lists of those who attended; non-attendance was common but everyone had been urged to attend. Mr. Janosik asked how he might find out more about investment tax credits available for the district. Mr. Oxian referred him to Mr. Holycross. Visitor presentations here ended. The Commission agreed to defer voting on a recommendation until the end of the meeting to accommodate other visitors. B. Certificates of Appropriateness 1. 519 Edgewater Drive --Local Historic District. Mr. Pastor reported that the owner, Mr. Cochrane, wished to replaced eight aluminum double -hung sashes on the front porch with double insulated glass and applied muntins. The number of windows and the size of the window openings are to remain the same. Mr. Pastor distributed Polaroids of the existing structure. Mr. Cochrane said he wanted to make the porch a year-round livable space. As it is, it is too cold. Mrs. Sporleder asked him to describe any other plans he had for making the porch livable. He listed a number of changes, all to the interior. Mr. Oxian worried that the distinction between house and porch might be lost. This distinction might be preserved by using 1/1 double hung sashes, which would contrast to the 6/1 double hung sashes on the rest of the house. Mr. Cochrane pointed out that the muntins were applied muntins. Mrs. Choitz moved to approve Mr. Cochrane's proposal; Mr. Eide seconded; Mr. Oxian abstained. Motion approved. 2. 621 Lincolnway East --Local Historic District. Mr. Pastor read a five-part proposal for this house. He said the case had been brought to the attention of staff by the Department of Code Enforcement who had sited the property for code violations. He distributed photos of the house. No certificate of appropriateness violations had occurred. He said he had reviewed the district standards and found only one possible source of problems in the proposal --the removal of the rear porch addition, which would reveal part of the facade. Mrs. Sporleder asked the owner, Mr. MacHatton, what would be uncovered when the porch came off. He said he didn't know. Mr. MacHatton said he hoped to get advice from the Commission architects on how to best carry out his proposals. Mr.Oxian advised itemizing the five parts of the proposal and voting on each separately. Mr. Pastor proceeded to read each staff recommendation individually. a. Tuck -point foundation. Mr. Pastor reported that the foundation had loose mortar, of a patchy and incorrect type. Standards require compatible mortar and regular maintenance;.he therefore recommended approval. Mrs. Sporleder moved to approve the tuck -pointing; Mrs. Choitz seconded; motion carried unanimously. b. Demolish back porch. Mr. Pastor reported that the back porch is deteriorated and the foundation settling. It is not original to the house; it cannot be seen from the street. The staff therefore recommended its demolition and urged the Commission to make proposals as to how the newly -exposed facade might be finished. Mrs. Sporleder moved to allow removal of the porch and to have the exposed back wall secured in a manner consistent with the surrounding wall. Mrs. Dennen seconded the motion; motion carried unanimouslv. c. Reroof house with 3 -in -1 tab asphalt shingles. Automatically approved. d. Replace gutters and eaves troughs with contemporary counterparts. Mr. Pastor reported nothing in the standards specifically mentioning gutters and said they had a negligible impact on the exterior appearance. Mrs. Sporleder moved to approve the replacement. using anv materials that seemed appropriate. Mrs. Choitz seconded. Motion carried unanimouslv. e. Rebuild chimney with new brick. Mr. Pastor reported that the existing chimney was crumbling The staff recommended replacement, provided the color and texture of the bricks and mortar was as closely duplicated as possible as well as the chimney's original proportions. Mrs. Sporleder moved to approve; Mrs. Dennen seconded; motion approved unanimouslv. Questioned by Mrs. Choitz, Mr. Holycross affirmed that the staff would work with Mr. MacHatton on the project. 3. 325 W. North Shore Drive --Local Historic District. Mr. Pastor reported that the owner, Mr. Yeandel, wished to enclose the second -story rear balcony. Aluminum siding would be used to match existing siding. A 6/6 double hung sash pair would be installed (double -pane insulated glass) and topped with a semi -circular transom light. He reported nothing specific in the standards to prohibit the alterations. The matter had been put before the Commission, he said, because the house was a one -of -a -kind example of the Sear's mail-order "Magnolia" house. Mr. Oxian asked why the house was aluminum -sided. Mr. Yeandel said this was the work of the previous owner; the original siding, he believed, was 4" clapboard. He said he supported the goals of the historic district and agreed that his house had great significance. The purpose of enclosing the balcony, he said, was to create a 2nd -story laundry for his wife; she was getting too old to use the basement laundry. Since the balcony was useless, he thought it proper to make a usable space of it. Mr. Welsheimer moved to agarove the or000sal; Mrs. Choitz seconded; motion carried unanimouslv. 4. 814 Arch Avenue --Local Historic District. Mr. Pastor reported that the owner wished to apply a non -yellowing breathable water repellent to brick. No representative was present. Mrs. Sporleder questioned the need for the repellent. Mr. Oxian suggested asking the owner to forego it. Mr. Eide pointed out some problems (trapped moisture) associated with such repellents and said usually they were not needed. Mr. Pastor proposed denying the proposal, subject to appeal. Mrs. Sporleder deemed it unwise to forbid the proposal because, in the standards, repellents were not prohibited. She suggested instead making a recommendation against the proposal. Mr. Oxian agreed with Mr. Pastor. He said the owners could re -apply for a certificate of appropriateness and convince the Commission of the need for the repellent. Discussion followed. Mr. Pastor said it was possible to deny a non -prohibited proposal should the owner fail to prove a real need for it. Mrs. Choitz suggested suspending action on the proposal because of inadequate documentation. Mrs. DeRose advised a conditional denial, subject to the owner's right to challenge the denial, in writing, within 15 days. She further advised sending written notice to the owners. Mrs. Choitz moved to approve the conditional denial; Mrs. Sporleder seconded; motion carried unanimouslv. 5. 1154 Lincolnway East --Local Historic District. Mr. Pastor reported that the owner wished to remove the 2nd -story door and door opening at the rear of the main house, over a one-story entry vestibule. He would then infill with clapboard to match the house's original siding (now covered in asphalt shingle siding). Mrs. Sporleder asked whether the owner also planned to remove the window; Mr. Pastor said no. Mrs. Choitz pointed out that, in 1986, the Commission had let the owners remove an exterior enclosed staircase from the back of the house, making the door useless. Mr. Oxian said the owner ultimately planned to remove the asphalt siding from the whole house. He urged the Commission to insist on clapboard infill when they approved the proposal. This would, he hoped, discourage the owner from changing his plans. Mrs. Sporleder said she doubted the Commission had the right to make such a condition. She considered it sufficient to let the owner carry out his plans as best he could. A small region of clapboard surrounded by asphalt would look odd anyway. Mr. Oxian countered that removing the door was an exterior change to the house, and was therefore subject to the setting of conditions. Mr. Eide moved to approve the owner infilled with clapboard; motion carried unanimously. V. Regular Business A. Approval of Minutes. proposal. provided the Mrs. Choitz seconded; Mr. Oxian said he had several important changes to make to the November minutes. Since he had forgotten to bring the list with him, he asked that the minutes be either tabled, or conditionally approved. Mrs. DeRose said the minutes could not be used as the basis of legal action until officially approved. Conditional approval was not possible. The minutes were tabled. B. Treasurer's Report. Mrs. Sporleder asked whether any funds should be encumbered before year's end. Mr. Holycross said no; there were surplus funds for the current year and funding for the next year had already been received. Surplus funding would revert to the General Fund after Jan. 1 and not be re-applied to the Commission budget. He said encumbering the surplus was not possible because it came from moneys designed to temporarily cover operating expenses. Funds taken from this source were later paid back from grant money. Mr. Welsheimer moved to approve the treasurer's resort; Mrs. Choitz seconded; report approved unanimouslv. C. Correspondence No discussion. D. Committee Reports. 1. Certificates of Appropriateness. a. Staff Approvals --1028 E. Wayne, LHD No report. b. 1501 E. Wayne, LHD. Mr. Pastor reported sending two letters to the owner, Mr. Axelberg, over the past month. The first letter asked Mr. Axelberg to apply for a certificate of appropriateness for the work already completed. The second, more strongly phrased, threatened legal action if no application was filed by Jan. 1. He said he had received no reply.' 2. Budget and Finance No report. 3. Legal --Maintenance Standards. Mrs. DeRose again urged the Commission to follow all procedures and standards scrupulously when taking action; courts were likely to be hostile to historic preservation. She said she had reviewed the procedures manual and identified several areas in need of reworking, expansion, and update. These areas included maintenance and demolition. She had made one major change to the standards since originally submitting them to Mr. Oxian. This change was to the enforcement mechanism. The self -enforcement written into the standards had been weakened and she had decided to make certificates of appropriateness unnecessary for maintenance problems. Mr. Oxian suggested routinely informing Code Enforcement whenever owners received notice of maintenance violations. Mrs. DeRose agreed to redraft the standards, adding this stipulation. Mrs. Soorleder moved to accept the standards, with the added stipulation. Mrs. Petrass seconded the motion; motion carried unanimously. Mrs. Petrass asked Mr. Holycross for his opinion of the standards. He said he thought them sound and workable. He still had some doubts about enforcement, but felt sending letters to the owner and to code enforcement would be helpful. 4. Historic Districts. a. Monroe Park Proposed Historic District; first reading. Mr. Oxian announced the second reading, to appear on next month's agenda. At that time, Monroe Park representatives would be invited to present their arguments. In the mean time, the staff would continue to gather information about the district. Also, the Monroe Park committee would meet and come up with a recommendation. 5. Historic Landmarks Mr. Oxian reported that he had secured a postponement until at least February of the Southern Hotel demolition, giving those who wished to save it more time to act. 6. Public Relations and Community Education No report 11 7. Personnel No report 8. Staff Reports. a. Bi -monthly report. No discussion. V. Old Business A. Proposed Certificate of Appropriateness Requirements. Mr. Pastor submitted copies of updated standards, which included all corrections proposed at the November meeting. These would, in future, be sent to owners with'Certificate of Appropriateness!application materials, and given to applicants whose documentation was inadequate. Mrs. Sporleder suggested using Area Plan staff to prepare certificate of appropriateness documentation. Mr. Holycross said he doubted they would cooperate. The reason she asked, she said, was because full documentation might sometimes prove costly; owners might resent having to supply it. Mr. Holycross saidldetailed documentation was only occasionally required. Mr. Eide moved to approve the requirements; Mrs. Sporleder seconded; carried unanimouslv. VI. Lincolnway East Secession Vote. Mr. Oxian asked the Commission for a vote. Mrs. Sporleder said she would like more discussion first. Mrs. Sporleder said she found no compelling proof of any real harm befalling anyone because of the district, or because of anything the commission had done or failed to do. Mr. Oxian discounted most of the arguments presented earlier. Only one'person, he said, had offered any convincing arguments. Mrs. Sporleder wondered whether it might not be best to allow the secession, simply to stop the complaints. However, she felt established procedure should be used to change the district, instead of appeals to the council. Mr. Oxian described the workings of the relevant ordinance and advised Mrs. Sporleder that the only available option at' this point was to make a recommendation to the Council. Mrs. Choitz stated that the two -block area provided'a buffer between the heart of the district and a nearby commercial zone. The houses, admittedly, were not up to the standard,of the rest of the district; they were, however, restorable. Mrs. Sporleder asked about the nature of the zoning. Mr. Oxian said most of it was zoned B -residential. Mr. Welsheimer said he suspected Mr. N. Shafer wanted to shake off the historic district classification to make it easier to zone the area commercial. Some discussion of the 1987.court ruling (mentioned by Mr. R. Nelson) followed. Mr. Oxian outlined the procedure for making a recommendation to the Council. He instructed Mr. Holycross to draft'a letter stating the commission's recommendation and'send it to the Common Council. Mr. Holycross agreed to do so, and said he would also prepare a more detailed report before meeting with the Common Council Commission on Zoning. Mrs. Choitz moved to send an unfavorable recommendation to the Council on Bill 64-91. Mrs. Petrass seconded. Motion carried unanimouslv. Mrs. Sporleder advised Mr. Holycross to mention in his letter that a public hearing had been conducted. VII. New Business A. Nominating Committee I Mr. Oxian added this item to the agenda. He nominated Mrs. Choitz, Mr. Welsheimer, and Mrs. Dennen to the nominating committee for next month's officer elections. VIII. Hearing of Visitors IX. Announcements and'Miscellaneous Matters. X. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MONTHLY MEETING OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION November 18, 1991 County Council Caucus Room, #411 7:30 p.m. County/City Building I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. II. Roll Call Members Present: Mr. John Oxian, President; Mr. Herb Herendeen; Mrs. Janeanne Petrass; Mr. Jed Eide; Mrs. Martha Choitz ; Ms. Jean Dennen; Mr. James Pastor, Survey Manager; Mr. Fred Holycross, Director; Ms. Suzanne Booker, Surveyor; Ms. Aladean DeRose, City Attorney. Members Absent: Mr. Bill Welsheimer; Mrs. Joanne Sporleder; Mr. Odell Newburn. Also Present: Ms.'Barbara Steele, Southhold Restorations: Mr. Todd Zeiger, HLFI; Mr. Chris Kramer, HPC intern; Mr. and Mrs. Michael Toal, owners, 1421 E. Wayne; Mr. R.W. Dunfee, interior designer; Mr. Sean Coleman, City Councilman at large. Mr. Herendeen suggested that each commission member identify himself/herself for the benefit of the visitors; this they did. III. Public Hearing A. Committee Report Mr. Oxian proposed that 1421 E. Wavne be placed at the head of the aqenda. Mrs. Petrass so moved: Mr. Herendeen seconded. 1. 1421 E. Wayne --Local Historic District. Mr. Herendeen presented the committee report on the owners' proposal to replace the existing casement windows with Pella 8/12 double hung sashes. The owners, Mr. and Mrs. Toal, proposed to replace the front three casements with two double hung'sashes, and the four side casements with three double hung sashes. Mr. Herende'en reported that the committee had met with Mrs. Toal October 24 so as to better understand her request for a certificate of appropriateness. He said he and the other committee members, 1 November 22, 1991 STAFF REPORT T. George Podell c/o Thomas Marullo 814 Arch Avenue South Bend, IN 46601 PROPOSAL Apply non -yellowing breathable water repellent to brick (brand name "White Roc 7"). STANDARDS II. Existine Structures A) BuildinL- Materials 4) Not Recommended Waterproof or water repellent coatings or surface consolidation treatments should not be used unless required to solve a specific problem that has been studied and identified. Coatings are frequently unnecessary, expensive and can accelerate deterioration of the masonry. RECOMMENDATIONS The use of water repellents is discouraged but not disallowed by the standard sited above. The building's wall surface, composed of a brick first story and a wood clapboard second story, recently received a water wash to remove vine roots. The contractor wishes to apply the water repellent as a protection against masonry deterioration. As it appears from the street, the brick as it exists appears solid and in good condition. The staff recommends that the commission discourage the owner from applying the water repellent film. 4 W E ROC: 7 8 9 C,He k TECHNICAL DATA GUtDE:''_N% ', 6' t a', FOR SPECIFYING CODE. <' Water -Repellent and Protective Systems for CS -209, CS -201 };rK Concrete and Masonry. • � r t Ai�t3.,-;"; '1...• FSI, yi7 37 $:WHITE ROC SYSTEM" PERFORMANCE VALUES ''':v Number -of coats .necessary .•for ; x=„ , 4•yw a,.,. `-``water. repellency should be determined;, '' White Roc offers: "�� M °• � c `White Roc system is a com- by water test on substrate. (For: seal'-;;, Y •line of clear water-repellent • Surface protection and repellency ing of light weight block consultyourel, at�fs for .application to a broad through the unique film forming Sonneborn Representative.) o architectural concrete and ability et enables all mason to.' �- r � gnry-,surfaces. The choice of a' breath. WHITE ROC8 f. r i . lar ,White Roc product is dic- tQ by_zathe substrate involved and • Resistance to fading or yellowing ` A high performance clear concre"te ec' ''desired. due to ultraviolet exposure. `.:., treattnent' and water repellant�seale� "Used;3-0i- _ invisible protect ion'ragainstja':'a • A polymeric treatment. that will . ' surface contamination where virtually= „ CRIPTION not attract airborne dirt:soot no' darkening or change'' of coloras asic Uses: The White desired. , Roc series of grime, etc. e llents is also 'used to protect A FT tt 'WHITE ROC --9: , - z,+�::•�. :_ rr surfaces. of above grade • Keeps all substrates cleaner-'iorR Ay`r. t " oxl>, masonry against the dis- longer periods of time : even`.' ins;' " Equivalent high performari Arrlear . a tion` caused by weather, air- dirty air environments. "'" -,' • << , sealer, to White Roc 8 except .tlia f4i ` M contaminates air Dilution ; "` ' ' x =_n pollution), •r r.. ''':' formulated with a special polyene Atha '! • A surface treatment that does',not. ;�;, enliances.,the color of exposed:aggreb ,4z mulcted from a unique propri chemically react with hidden,trace" � gate: ^.-Leaves''slight sheen ; on surface. e " . lend. of polymeric resins, the elements such as iron to" discolor,~ ',Not `f}'°use bn`sniooth dense Qr� . F.' or alter surface or texture:" `Y"' i`' r "it ma `tei into hi i t'T ;series provides the user with': " . =W.. r> °t: ,tet T:..T;as Y> 8w..81i 1? ,Ite �.,. virtually y' ?�� r �_.. x" ,to., , all of toda s':' a and sealin problems., 9 Minimizes w t .• �, Y g g p ems. wet streaking of:build, in exteriors. during inclement ," a< g `_LIMITATIONS s suit of the unusual character- �`_ ,- •. weather.- _ a.•.•,'-<< 3 • , . ..� _s-:'. , oi`.the• White Roc formulation, it„ ;,'_ ; ., ; si,- <;Not.recommended foi,beloy�l t. W ised -for more applications �,� wafetpjbofing.or: where wateitptes t `kb Reduces aggregate popouts due a• ° . y other single sealer on the;. �.Is;from.ittteriotof{wa11.:Not tdA tdday to wet freeze -thaw cycles..',•'as a %yaterproofcoating in.ahe 7y�' moi= ,., . i fst7-1•�0'� 7 ntit. the development of White Roc ,oCtanks;•poois; pits, ei:6.` of redo P_x+ •� Reduces efflorescence. (See White ' mended for ; application:. to . `plastics:.:' ° silicone or stearate type water p Roc 7.) r,,=.Not<foi, use on traffic bearing,gdead; ntt,were predominately avail- :- `=9 r„ :c• - .. '-F.�.. ,leye.l`surfaces:a� ,, :��t � 'x•.. , M While'.excellent water repellents',,,4 �-ri�•=•x•'„;;.:�-•y •��.- '- � mselves,'such products did not :'. 5-• W; White.,Roi: will nof'..pieven a ' DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEMS�:I. �'`� i ell in that the were unable't­. ;; : ',peliettiaflon.'through unsown„ ra e sur aces where : d"f cftve- as iotect substrates fromacidic air::. ` The following series of White '.:' '• ff ?�{; ,, gR $ _. t: a1. � r= Asa aee pYj. ' �.. • .•,� :In , Wkin"t�': or°^`stiuet`dt tion attack and staining. They,;- ` water repellent coatings " rcpresent44 i�:>v : g.''' s=resent Sur . k e . tion, tended to discolor certain ,the treatment systems that'are avaU-'p: g• *- ,. - =,a . r• strates ;White Roc has overcome able. �.:1�`';. ': k mess^u•jS. Ci tical.: to final:• AP iSativantages and is superior to�...... •. t�; '•' ofl.,�iMln{=1te�,.Roc' treatedYwaIh e' 14stearate performance. ;'<` ti3<��grease'>�'forin release, tIn a r. WHIT �" ianct' Air; polIutlon depgsits Y ups E ROC 7 �;- t,C ; t s of the ..White Roc p y :> - . s r�:,�tJ •• 'remo!ed.frorn'subatrateck>ar;1 {� - r.'• e rovides erformance White`Roc 7.iss ecificall desi' "e ”' "':`'uy ;a "_°'`r'"''r = :�' bility hitherto unobtain=„c : for , application' to most' above''gr'acip? �""FpT='mor %detailed: l lforina , t{> a e y' use of conventional acrylic, common brick surfaces and concrete White Roc Toner see Sonnebom's methyl methacrylate, silicone or block. It may' be used successfully'`'r; CHEMsttuction Systents`' Teciiitica i� stearate type products. on concrete surfaces as well. '"' Dlattt Gulde`Fortn No SI1�3. #,A rFieeomniended CHEMstruetion System by problems you =fi z4jactngrefer to the Waterproofing Selection Guide Booklet :a• ti. ;, L' S)ntems Form No. 1-2-3 ALGA. ,ere sealants or caulks are to be For blemish or stainfree results,';'_ :To prevent damage to nearby" • llowing the application of, especially on light-colored oc;'white'g3=beryiarid landscaping; cpve �cbnsult Sonnebom-Contech_'. surfaces, surface cleanliness`;.bef9re`=1l+�:topt�;�Yith- dro cloth -�"e C' ' r Service o ..0 P - Se for detailed recom• = applying White Roc is critical: ;.=t''c' ass > tnefal:�. an �., - .. x. , ..Iric�dental•:;'gl' , . at ons as to choice of Sonnebom 3 Surface must bed and free'b •building ;components incltidu dry glass"'so'. as,. to. prevent damage" frost. After rainfall allow surface - away :from heat and f1l; ;p e, result of the infinite combing= dry at least 2 to 3 days or longer contactiwith''skin, breatiiir%go` f. aggregates, cements and manu• avoid developing a hazing effect; = ; iocesses m4jhould ba Ovoid may.. cause a par. be, 4v White Roc rodu t A lication: White Roc' may clo$ed^when not p c . to • . PP c may nto{;;highlight unnecessarily the • plied at any time when temperat �e i applied. This are above 40 F (4 C). It to.which it s a � aPPlieti'r��,;r:�,��*a..t:.,3.•:o-��•,,..,,.. ;.... z. �to .varying textureslaw e,.particularly true due to the directly from the container using;:;e; ,•;;,>? • s a ori; nt shading which may occur , good quality brush, roller, airless of j :.osity of, bricl .and block, `it s' Dred concrete or cement, there- conventional air type sprayer...,':::.;mended that`24'to 48 hours; ; 4,ecommended that a test be sprayers must be equipped with neo+.>,- i the` application of; the cted'r, on the actual. substrate to prene hose. Mixing is not required for Y ` • co ",Of White Roc 7: or 8;�t1 'mine.hthe effect or consult local the clear White Rocs. All tools and-,, be 'sprayed with water from-'a'.1' hose.,;.to determine water're el bol�tt-Contech Representative for ^ equipment must be clean prior to and''" :': p.. f tamer,. service on the White Roc during application to prevent possible:`. If additional- coats should be re% '' allow. area to dr com letel a em. staining or discoloration. y P y coat and test. as necessary.-; .i- RECOMMENDED USE CHARTITE ROC 9 SHOULD N( ,:USED ON BRICK OR BLOCK WHITE ROC' s:t. t ^ `: ','. ,.,;�,°G;} `' tai• --CTION' SERIES �. p 'Clean all tools''anXi ref Repellent Protection 7, 8, & 9 '`'' menf''directly. after use. with;;, „sI^ visible Clear Coating 7 or 8 t;a bom't,'Reducer 990. Jf accide �} ,applied to glass or anodized aClpar Coating/Exposed Aggregate 9 � num; .remove immediately' bys% r 1' .with a.: clean cloth .saturated' X p ::.seducer. 99Q. al lt' ,Y +.'• -'t• y+.;;^.{, x` 5 e o. a.:�t. anr:; ;rr� 3! itlt ild;I tergerA vas •'%Fe �" '^ .�S'-;}.:•.��..5�[i""tih,�j;E• T, 9,�' y-^'• :'fit: 'p' ,7f�^�'irF : C TION� _•: '' ¢ *�i ` ROC 7 8 & 9 `,;' �4�COWIFU E RATEtPE t•� i< eparatory Work: Complete all :,' pp y f rm,tnan "� . , * "�: A 1 White Roo in uni o �.: ' ,^• { intro or restoration work :;;.: ner that full wets out the surface et,,. :. WHITE'.ROC 8':;•,<U.S:.Gi mencing ` application.' Ifs does note cause flooding or; rundowns je-,; us precede such work; <,.' Always pick off". rundowns;withrAtchiectiiral`�Conerete2'ZS ., t .. t r^ 175" §� hoil .be taken to. avoid appli-': a brush or dry roller to prevent-ungr; Textttred.Concrete .` .; rt;a ou of :White Roc to joint faces:':,, sightly lap or rundown marks::PS f, .. namination may cause sealantapplying r'' Faco`Btic]Cr=.f'sy. ;':200 Y When spray Whifeltocf>�.• r- COherete.Blocl�k ` 100:' pori: problems. Perimeter or ex-..` spray a uniform f soon joints which have been treat followed by a .uniform overlapptnp`7',,WHITE RbC t h ite Roc may be success-!,.-.,'.,.,..*," •'yi �a �trt k Yvertical stroke. ;-,- ;',�rs�' ::- jliC d: with Sonnebom's Sono r' `° -' ` Ez ed Aggyrpate 3/8 slant and a s ; ; .For ,optimum' perfoirtiarice''atleas ?g#osedfAggregate.3/4' 6 Se specific primer's' 'two coats of, ?'. h t s`� c- : White, Roc . 7, 8�`a>d :`.:, .,'. 1.'tonnebom-Contech •Technical ;�,'=;. " ` �aWHITE RO 1 fp[ recommendations. Field' '`'are required... See'-coverage, chart`,for.'' specific details on White Roc ;System* I� o„mmon'Brick ;; •: �,; ;12Q' shouI d`: be performed for con- . application. Dry time of White: Roc' 9s a Face,Brlck:#;r. 1'60 °� at 70OF (21 oC) p 'x `Con r o Bloc :czw a p matel}►,,1:Act°:p,�t� M;•:,t,. ;:,�ay�;�ra. ,,, �.��� is daces must be structural) hour. D time of White Roc 7 J dot s. ,clean and free of all dust, dirt, at 70OF is approximately 4!hourd:� .. ,,• r. .. .� rtu ns''efflorescence oil pollution However, it is recom x_'i'r't �;.•,:? ''`' . , p mend' is urin forming and parting,'-.' these coatings be allowed to dry ''- :. S, g - , F? g;:;�.: • t re ancltisorption`cTia;=:, iutd Ad all other forei mat-'`. _night before- the: second: ,i6A1. isR;a . �i a'- gn Led. turfacea determine actuel'coverag6 of ter. New masonry construction or P • •• For ::coveraga; on Iight�veigtit;, o� restoration must be fully cured and Precautions: Application should not. 1- }; faced.bI k;,con;uit So iebo dry. _ proceed during inclement weather:=' .;'• nical'Service Department�g'.0. • ICAL DATA`;:- „ :<<� ; }� "• 'd:` � �."�� .;. � expansion of the structure, accident;''�'.i eatherometer TesYEkposure Datai'.° 1. After 1000 hours no visible film fire or other casualty, or other ;•- ! :. physical damage. as,T ple c Model'. :;, " ; . , .: failure. Exposed Aggregate panels 2. After 1000 hours no visible color Except as pro z yr.'? :...;::�+ 'cliaiigc NEBORN MAKE; rriootii.Concrete panels ,.,._..r`,� OR WARRANTY Fr �p 3, After 1000 hours no loss of water •� g:�_ PLIED INCLU O houis Wet�Dry:;cycle ` x:-ti + "` t;.,� . x�rti ;=.') �+� .^``'� : •3a ,,.,-repellency. LIMITATION `e Wt After �10001houirs absorption factor;. .. , : �:; FITNESS OR.MF WITH ; ItESPECT INGS µanti `$onni �.•� 'aY'itl e'•' tl other 'liability w including, •,.witho + liability., for' ind - 01V + r. Q {'WHITE ROC 8 WHITE ROC 9 or resultant dama T!,�o breach of warrant This'guarantee Nonewarranties guarai ine3` ..:;`;`.>:; ;" None '= " tions, 'written ` c ,i athet Resisfance'y ;;'Excellent:; ;'Y Excellent'. Excellent made with respect Resistance Excellent: ;'; _ . Excellent ea#i=Up•Solvent°'t '•�'Rediicei.,990`r= ';:Reducer 990 Reducer 990 : ' s';:� Excellent i al�ility'j '' :. = Excellerif : f' •/'.,; 'Excellent MAINTENANC Colo anon' '? : None None "' . ; Y; None None allutant`' :4: White,Roc tre require further mr Resistant , Yes ``... Yes Yes Yes Yes that customarily lea thing,,, ;;: .'Yes=..• :=F: +.;,. building , surface! „x paint removers ai remove 'ink;. :tip: SIZES-AM COLORS tend to remove Retreatment ° is n circumstances. ;;Product „``' .. 'i �FCa�ar `: Size 'White Fttic:.7, 8, & 9 ;`"�'`` `Clear'; 5 gal. pails & �;_::• s Y' i. , ; . ; . 55 gal. drums 'R ducer 990 tl I gaI.6jcase & t ,!Xv 5 gal. pails �f� t `�' 1Yr'ti1y.. r: � 'i�'A "'-:�+m" •^ 1:� yM`�t� . A .�1 ° " - 1.^ �: ,, � . i s V �F :7,y s,. q ."ral. ., * yy, `}'r �yi =_',?:•'` •k �f', 1';. .. _ :y�egiJ,%VR"' I GiAAlVTEE z3;' •` 9lifaitf five �yea1��perfocittance ► ,,twtil at its. expense, supply sufficient:_:*.., , l ? X applicatt r ` Sf ` ` u has mateoal = as '•, necessary .. to . re-treat <; - •«s �:. `fir «. ,ta, .., .. J .. . , . - t i _ atify '"Soiiriebolt one�� t 'e'� . ` hose' specific area so they, are free ' "- • "::'.::., .;i;}moi."`t to�start°of applicatlon:and,must fro'seepage or .leakage for the re- tali late W urchase `ofe-sufTie'le w " 'maining `pardon of this guarantee,- ' x¢r.` }'6ut: only if Sonneborn is notified in . +wg - ..,j:4'.vlr"•.+`'k.�''`<�'F�' fir',. .. - te'''�'oc t . writing of:=such seepage or leakage nne om. Building Prodacts.;Divf=,,r =within= thirty . (30) days after it inteeh Iric `,�erebj►=guacan,�;�' .. occurs , and is afforded opportunities visions at« subject toy: the;�:-'• ^ • '. }to';,lnspect any .such areas at such e :-White?Roc will prevent seep; - ; c'akage: in an ` ""tea rid.`r tlme`s"M as Sonnebom. may reasonably �' 4 iiasonrys,wfcfiVliltr'egeiaatr "�; ?; ;:,; ;•._:; e�applfedil'ga"d's FR This:guaiantee'`does not 'apply, and-•.. aniits y' anriei" atid.iit rd�i� �5oiuiebam ;;makes no guarantee or u il{,Sonrieliorrt�wz3tt n din•: ,itvarianty;:*and .'disclaims all liability, rik��sl6diuring-fthe fl yeaiu jwtiere`any, seepage or leakage results Mkt:faliawirtthercjattof`irom„sftuctural; cracks or defects, or tion; any succi}`seepag e'ai;leak �� ~ tfroir"faulty construction, design, or p8. i;+: 'roccur'A ri any area fo which White'a;; materials (other than White Roc), _ltasbeenso applied; Sonneborii`�r'misuse of the structure, settlement or I1. Rating ❑Outstanding Significant/Notable ®Contributing C/10 I4. Historic Name Homer A. Robinson 6. Address X14 Arch INDIANA HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES INVENTORY Jack L. Carver & Charles J. Martin 12. Ownership Owner's Address (if different) ❑ Public EjPrivate 13. Use Present Past 14. Category Residence ® ® ® Building(s) Commercial ❑ O LN District ❑ ❑ ❑ Site ❑ ❑ ❑ Structure ❑ Object 19. Time Period(s) 1920 2. County 3. Survey No. St. "h 5. Townsh.� ; Preliminary No. Portage 141-597-56710 (5604- 7. City 8. Quad Name South Bend, Ito. 46618 South Bend East State of Indiana Department of Natural Resources State Form 168221 Revised 1987 TCTMM7� 111.Endangered Explain aYes ❑ No ❑ Yes [N No 15. Surveys / Legal Protections 16. Location Notes / Legal Description Edgewater Place Local Lot G Edgewater Place 2nd Add. Historic District (1980) 18-3040-1551 20. Style(s) I21. Architect I Builder Dutch Colonial 22. SPECIFY ALTERATIONS Removals Replacement Additions Alum. St. windows & door 23. DESCRIPTION Stories two Pian Rectangular Chim: gable end Dro ectinQrtilerflue nimney wjconcreLe Foundation Concrete (?)(Brick over) Walls Red br. lower story w/ alum. sided (new) on second floor. Asph: shingle co ered b/1L central gable w/ena_wails decordi.ed i,U Roo; appear as a gambrevl. Porches Bracketted pedimented entry stoop roof. Openings (lacrription on back (Interior Grounds/ Outbuildings Brick, flat roof, 1 1/2 car garage. 125. No. of Contributino Resources , 126. No. of Non-contributing Resources n 17. Condition 18. Integrity 7 Excellent ❑ Unaltered ❑ Good UAltered Mi nor ❑ Fair ❑ Moved ❑ Deteriorated Date moved ❑ Ruins Whitcomb & Keller Other Alum. siding 2nd St. & soffit 24. SITE PLAN A►�.C, Air �t 27. Environment D-4,4-4-4,1 __ n,,,-- December 3, 1991 STAFF REPORT William and Laurel Cochrane 519 Edgewater Drive South Bend, IN 46601 PROPOSAL Replace eight aluminum double hung sashes at front porch (5 @ front, 1 @ south side, 2 @ north side) with vinyl clad wood double hung sashes with double insulated glass, applied muntins top -sashes to have six lights, bottom sashes to have one. Rough openings to remain the same; number of sashes per side to remain the same. Sashes to be Anderson Brand. STANDARDS II. Existine Structures C) Windows and Doors 1) Required Existing or original windows and doors, including sash ... shall be retained, or when deteriorated beyond repair, replaced with duplicates of the existing or original. 3) Prohibited Existing or original windows, doors and hardware shall not be discarded when they can be restored and reused in place. D) Entrances. Porches. and Steps 1) Recommended When enclosing porches for heat conservation or other reasons it should be done in a manner that does not alter the architectural or.historical character of the building. 3) Prohibited Porches and steps that are important to the building's style and development may not be altered or removed. RECOMMENDATIONS The porch is enclosed by eight thin, aluminum double hung sashes;, these are not original nor do they qualify as historic. The proposed sashes are identical in size and shape to the original 6/1 double hung sashes that exist throughout the building. As per standards II.C(1,3) and II.D(1), the proposed sashes alter the architectural character of the porch and overall house fenestration that existed at the time of district implementation. The proposed sashes are introducing a multi -pane element to the porch which will bring more emphasis to the porch fenestration than the existing. Also as a result of the proposed, the porch will be more integrated as an interior space whereas the existing fenestration lends to a transitory interior/open air space. It is the opinion of the staff that the porch originally had the transitory quality that it has today; that is, it relates to both the str.eetscape and the house interior; its character is that of a transitional, semi -private space. The introduction of the proposed sashes would eliminate this quality of the porch and from this standpoint, is an unsympathetic change to the architectural and historic quality of the building. However, the proposed windows do not alter existing rough openings and are typical of windows throughout. Also, from a materials standpoint, they are an.improvement over the existing. . Andersen° General Information PERMA- SHIELD'S Narrolines Double Hung Windows )74arrolinO Double Hung Windows w6 sash in a single frame that operate by sliding vertically. Sash are offset in seperate planes, enabling them to bypass when operated. Sash slide within channels created by the jamb liner profile. Sash are counter- balanced by clock -spring mechanisms concealed in the head jamb. An optional full screen attaches to the frame on the outer- most plane to allow unhindered operation of both sash. Picture window units with an identical frame profile are also available. Advantages M Long -life, low -maintenance materials are used for all exterior surfaces. The Perma-Shield-" Narrolines is a true double hung, both sash can be operated for ventilation. * Pre -applied flanges simplify installation. * Pre -applied hardware reduces installation costs. Natural clear pine sash interiors provide interior finish flexibility. Exterior mounted full insect screens allow for screened operation of both sash. Applications Perma-Shield's Narrolines are commonly used in apartments, condominiums, and office buildings when a traditional look is desired. Narrolines windows deliver the performance of Andersen Perma-Shield3 products at its lowest cost per square foot. Sizing consistent with traditional industry standards makes Perma-Shield" Narrolines very adaptable to the replacement of existing double hungs. The pre -finished sash interior option makes the Perma-Shield" an attractive and economic alternative when white and Terratone` interiors are preferred. Perma-Shield Narrolines can be joined jamb -to -jamb to create ribbons of windows, stacked vertically, or used separately, to affect a variety of fenestrations. 4�ndersen PERK4A-SH|ELDm ndersof NarroV'ne��Double Hun���ndow�� ^ .0 �� - Standard Features of a Per00a~Sh^ ldO Narro8^neO Double Hung Window Traditional 'style and character --e000QbiOed with a\ow- —aiOt8D8OQefiOiSh8Od ease of operation iDth8/\Dd8rG8n Pe[Q0a-Shi8|dmK]a[R3liD8m widThtsection illustrates the quality features standard on all Perma-Shield Na[nOl{neS.TheSe features contribute tOthe BaSV installa- tion, 8aSVoperation,energy 8f- fiCi8OCV,and lUVY-[OaiMt8OaOC8 Ofthis product. Please use these aSpoints Ofcomparison when selecting windows. BASE UNIT FEATURES: 0FRAME. Exterior wood members are treated with awater repellent preservative and covered with apre-formed rigid vinyl (PVC) sheath inwhite orTenmtnna`. Sill ends are prefiniohedwith polyuneoinwhite and polyester urethane inTorngono. 0SASH. Wood members are treated �itli avvaior repellent preservative. The exterior of the wood sash ixprotected with along-lasting patented while pn|yumaor polyester urethanefinish. The trior face of the sash is clear pine. able of accepting stained or painted 4 1E)GLAZNG BEAD Arigid vinyl piece with a flexible tip that seals against the glass, sheds water 8athe exterior and helps hold the glass in place. 0 WEATHERSTRIPPING. Three types ofweatherstripping are used onthe Norro|inowindow. Avinyl wrapped foam, is applied (othe top and bottom rail ofthe sash tocompress avinyl rib onthe frame, Acompressible, flexible bu|b'typoviny| seals the area between the sash and the check rail. Polypropylene leaf weatherstrip with afoam insert hugs the center rib of the side jamb liner sash channel. 0ANCHORING FLANGE &VV|ND' BREAK.Faotoryapp|iodrigkjviny|8angeo ethead and sides ofouter frame members act auflashing and installation flanges, A flexible vinyl windbreak isapplied at the factory to seat the unit at the sill area. r d�SILL. Wood core. treated with :p water repellent preservative, covered with rigid vinyl (PVC) sheath \nwhite orTenatone. — 0 JAMB LINER. Arigid vinyl (PVC)piece designed Vocover the side jamb and create the channel in which the sash slides. (D SASH LOCK & LIFT. Factory applied hardware with unattractive stone -color decorator finish. 4D COUNTER BALANCES, Overhead. flat. clock -spring mechanisms, concealed bythe head jamb liner, offset the weigh, of the sash 8xprovide easy operation /or both sash and allow them tostand inany desired open position. 4) PICTURE WINDOW UNITS. The frame configuration, glazing options. and color selection found inthe Perma'Shie|d' Narm|ina"ventilating units, are available insingle sash stationary windows aswell. Picture window sash are secured byclear PERMA- SHIELD" Andemen Narroline) Double Hung Windows Architect Specified Options & Accessories A wide variety of options and accessories are available for Andersen Perma-Shield Narroline' windows. The seven most common selections you should make in order to com- pletely specify an Andersen Perma-Shield' Narroline= window are shown on this page. A brief description is given for each option or acces- sory which should be sufficient in most instances to make a specifying decision. If additional information is needed, contact your Andersen supplier. 1 COLOR (COLOR)` Andersen Perma-Shield` windows are available in two colors—white and Terratone'. The white is a soft white that won't fade or yellow even after extended exposure to the sun and elements. Terratone@ is an earth -hued color unique to Andersen. Although white Perma-Shields should not be painted, Terratone@ can, if desired. 2 GLAZING (GLASS) Although a multitude of glazing options are available, the standard selections are High -Performance (HP). High -Perform- ance is Andersen's version of "Low -E" glass. It is made by bonding a transpar- ent, microscopically -thin, metallic coating to one surface of glass and enclosing that surface in the desiccated air space of an insulating unit for protection. This coating substantially reduces radiant heat flow and makes High -Performance a 54% better insulator than regular double -pane. High -Performance Sun insulating glass uses the same technology but includes a bronze tinted pane for the outboard light of glass. This makes HP Sun an excellent choice when considerations for heating are less than cooling. A more complete explanation of these glazings' performance can be found in the Commercial Catalog. Additional information about the multitude of glazing options available in Andersen® Perma-Shield' Narroline windows can be obtained from your local Andersen supplier. 3 PERMA-FIT` GRILLES (GRILLE) Divided light grilles give the appear- ance of true divided lights without the traditional bother and shortcomings of true divided light sash. Divided light grilles fit tightly against the inside glass surface and are easily removed for glass clean- ing. Their exterior face is prefinished white or Terratone' to match the window exterior. The interior face may also be prefinished white or Terratone" or they may be Tycote" —a factory applied polymer that allows the grille to be stained or painted to match interior window finishes. 4 PREFINISHED INTERIOR Perma-Shield' Narroline® sash can be prefinished in either white or TerratoneO. The same long -life, polyurea and polyester urethane finishes used on the sash exterior can be applied to the interior as well. 5 INTERIOR TRIM Prefinished sill stops and clear pine stools are available for all sizes of Perma-Shields Narrolinell units. Accessory stops that cover the interior sash profile are avail- able for all sizes of Perma-Shields Narroline"' picture windows. ' NOTE: Abbreviations, shown In parentheses, refer to the Andersen CADD-1' computer aided design program. �rderSen' 6 PERMA-CLEAN= INSECT SCREENS (SCREEN) An aluminum frame with a white or Terratone® frame to match the surrounding window frame and a gun metal finish aluminum insect screen cloth in an 18x16 mesh. Screen frames are reinforced with a unique vinyl corner lock and secured in the window by factory applied wing blade fasteners held in nylon housings. 7 COMBINATION UNITS (COMBO) A complete unit for triple glazing, consisting of a prefinished aluminum frame, storm panels and an insect screen. They are finished in either white or Terratone". NL5 �1. Rating [:]Outstandln g Significant / Notable ❑ Contributing Ref. 4. Historic Na Richard A. & Thomas 0. CoffPv 6. Address 519 Edgewater INDIANA HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES INVENTORY 2. Count— 3. Survey No. Sn 5. Township Preliminary No. Portage 141-597-56724 7. City 8. Quad Name South Bend, IN. 46618 South Bend East State of Indiana Department of Natural Resources State Form 16822/Revised 1987 Vo I11. Endangered Explain E] Yes U No 12. Ownership Owner's Address (it different) ❑ Public ®'Private 13. Use Present Past 14. Category 15. Surveys / Legal Protections 16. Location Notes / Legal Description 17. Condition 18. Integrity Residence 13 ® C3 Building(s) Edgewater Place Local Edgewater P1. Add. Lot 26 & 27 ❑ Excellent ❑ Unaltered Commercial ❑ ❑ IN District Historic District (1980) ® Good ® Altered Major ❑ ❑ ❑ Site 18-3039-1505 ❑ Fair ❑ Moved ❑ ❑ ❑ Structure ❑ Deteriorated Date moved ❑ Ob)ect ❑ Ruins 19. Time Period(s) 20. Style(s) 21. Architect I Builder American 4 Square I Whitcomb & Keller 22. SPECIFY ALTERATIONS Removals Replacement Additions Other Alum.st. windows I I Alum. siding enclosed porch 23. DESCRIPTION 24. SITE PLAN Stories two Plan Souare Chini: 1 flush qable, brick w/corbelled top Foundation Brick I (walls Wide aluminum siding (Roof HiD; asphalt shinqles Porches Enclosed porch with flat roof (Openings Double hung- 6/1; wood storms Single leaf; door hood Interior (Grounds/Outbuildings 1 car, clapboard, hip roof garage I SOF kI- -4 - Ine •1. .-- .- December 11, 1991 STAFF REPORT Mr. Joseph MacHatton, JMA Properties 621 Lincolnway East South Bend, IN 46601 PROPOSAL 1) repoint brick foundation. 2) remove/demolish rear shed/porch. 3) reroof main house with -3 -in -1 tab asphalt shingle. 4) replace gutters and eave troughs with contemporary counterparts.. 5) rebuild chimney with new brick. STANDARDS II. Existine- Structures A) BuildinL- Materials 1) Required Masonry structures shall be maintained, tuckpointed and properly cleaned when necessary. 2) Recommended Mortar joints should be repointed only when there is evidence of moisture problems or when sufficient mortar is missing to allow water to stand in the mortar joint. Existing mortar shall be duplicated in composition, color, texture, joint size, method of application and joint profile. 4) Not Recommended Mortar joints that do not need repointed should not be. Repointing should not be done with a mortar of high Portland cement content which can often create a bond that is stronger than the building material. This can cause deterioration as a result of the differing coefficient of expansion and the differing porosity of the material and the mortar because they can cause serious damage to adjacent brick. B) Roofs and RoofinL 1) Required The existing shape and materials of the roof shall be retained. All architectural features which give the roof its essential character, such as ... chimneys ... shall be retained. 2) Recommended Whenever possible, the original shape and materials of the roof should be restored. Particular effort should be made to retain materials ... not commonly found in new construction. Roof covering which is deteriorated beyond repair should be replaced with new material that matches as closely as possible the existing or original in composition, size, shape, color and texture. D) Entrances. Porches. and Steers 1) Required Existing or original porches and steps ... shall be retained or replaced by replicas of the same design and materials when deteriorated beyond repair. Porches and additions reflecting later architectural styles, and which are important to the building's historic integrity shall be retained. 3) Prohibited Porches and steps that are important to the building's style and development may not be altered or removed. RECOMMENDATIONS The building at 621 Lincolnway East was recently -sited by the City Building Department for violation of maintenance and safety codes. The owner has applied for a Certificate of Appropriateness to begin the repairs necessary to bring the building to city code requirements. The HPC staff makes the following recommendations regarding the submitted renovation proposal: 1) The building's brick foundation is in need of tuckpointing a loose and inappropriate mortar repair is present. The staff suggests that,the commission allow this repair as per standards II.A.(1,2,4). 2) The ,existing enclosed entry porch at the rear of the building has foundation/settling problems and is in an overall deteriorated.condition. In that the porch is of minor significance:to the buildings historic integrity (see standards II:D.(1,3) and cannot be seen from the street, the staff recommends that it be removed. The staff suggests that the commission make some kind of recommendation regarding the finishing of the newly exposed portion of the rear facade. 3) The staff recommends that the owner be permitted to replace the existing copper lok pattern asphalt shingle with 3 in 1 tab asphalt shingle. I 4) The existing gutters are metal or aluminum half -round hanging gutters with aluminum downspouts. There is nothing specifically addressing gutters in the standards; replacing the existing with a contemporary aluminum gutter system will have a negligible effect on the building's roof profile and detailing. 5) The existing chimney is in deteriorated condition. The original brick has spalled heavily and cannot be reused in a reconstruction and the top portion of the existing has been rebuilt in the last twenty years in such a way as to be incompatible with the original. The staff recommends that the owner be permitted to rebuild the chimney with brick that matches the original in texture and color and in such a way as to replicate the height and proportion of the original chimney. Ar -LD SS I.zc,,OR: DEPARTMENT OF CODE ENFORCEMENT EXTERIOR CODE VIOLATIONS LIST 621 Lincolnway East (House) G. Libbey/C. Freel PREMISES CONDITION (ES 300.1, 300.2, 301.6): NO VIOLATION X 1. HIGH WEEDS 4 GRASS 2. RUBBISH OR GARBAGE 3. ABANDONED VEHICLE(S) I .Updated 11/5/91 DATE: PAGE I OF—Z-PAGES COMMENTS SIDEWALKS, DRIVES,' AND OTHER PAVED AREAS . (ES 3 01.5) NO' VIOLATION 1,; DETERIORATION X 3. Northeast corner of porch support =NDATION (ES 302.3): is leaning. 4. Northeast corner of foundation NO VIOLATION is falling apart; has has loose bricks, .......... and open mortar joints. S. 1. OPEN, MORTAR JOINTS ci 2. OTHER DETERIORATION GUARDS FOR BASEMENT WINDOWS (ES 302.4.7)-:'.-1-- NO VIOLATION 1. MISSING AND/OR TORN X 3. Damaged Aespdo inaround po WALLS (ES 302.3.2): Loose�at w,nao on south o NO VIOLATION .5. miss g and loo siding on w front s e. 1. PEELING PAINT 5. Miss' icing exposed on 0-r-th --ar wall. 2 F-OL"ES, BREAKS LOOSE OR ROTTED BOARDS DUDE VIOLATIONfi=JIST...:, !-s S: 621 Lincolnway East (House) DATE: PAGE 2;OF 2 PAGES Updated 11/5/91 ROOFS (ES 302.3.3): COMMENTS "...... NO VIOLATION l.. WORN AND/OR MISSING SHINGLES 1. OVERHANG DETERIORATED 3. FASCIA DETERIORATED 4. SOFFIT DETERIORATED 5. MOLDING DETERIORATED 6. ROOF DRAINAGE MISSING CHIMNEYS (ES 302.3.6): NO VIOLATION OPEN MORTAR JOINTS OTHER DETERIORATION STAIRS AND'PORCH£S (ES 302.3.7) -- NO VIOLATION 1. MISSING HANDRAIL 2. MISSING -GUARDRAIL 3. DETERIORATION 7. Southeast corner of main roof has worn /missing shingles. S. Guttering in state of disrepair. Q.::L:oo:sebricks and open joints. 4 loon is deteriorated. Ceiling boards are warped. / 6. Rear porch. has deteriorated support posts. t7. Front porch is sagging. \ 8. Front porch decking has peeling paint. 9. Front porch decking is warped. 1 Loose Yailin on Year norch WINDOWS.AND DOORS (£S 302.4): -- NO VIOLATION 1. CRACKED AND/OR BROKEN x GLASS 2. LOOSE AND./OR MISSING X PUTTY 3 YZ_cSING AND/OR TORN X ■ SI:REENS 4. Dr 'BRIORATIrN X 5. About 80% of house is without screens. I4. Historic Nam 6. Address 621—Li.ncolnway E. INDIQFIA HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES INVENTORY 621 LiNCOLNWAY � :r,., wF-sT �,�, 5. Townsh Preliminary No. Port 141-3:�7-56741 7. City 8. Quad Name South Bend, IN. 46618 South Bend East - State of Indiana Department of Natural Resources . state Form 16822/ Revised 1987 i;?111 11111,111)0IM11 ,1-41 9. Common Name 10. Visible 11. Endangered Explain CRYe6 ❑ No I ❑ Yes (R No 12. Ownership Owner's Address (If different) ❑ Public CBPrivate 18. Integrity 13. Use Present Past 14. Category Residence ® KI ® Building(s) Commercial ❑ ❑ E -District ❑ ❑ ❑ Site ❑ ❑ ❑ Structure ❑ Object 19. Time Period(s) 1892 1 Removals 15. Surveys / Legal Protections Edgewater Place local Historic District 16. Location Notes / Legal Description Fuerbringer.Lot 6 18-3030-1096 (1980) 20. Style(s) 121. Architect / Builder eNBrn,aea3%w4-/ Quenn Anne / Free Classic 22. SPECIFY ALTERATIONS ReplacementI Additions Alum. st. windows 23. DESCRIPTION Stories Two (Plan Irregular Chim: one off center, brick (Foundation Brick & Concrete wars Asphalt siding Roof Hip w/gable projections Porches 3/4 length open front porch; denticulated frieze Openings Si nql e 1 eaf , wood-gl azed; wood storm door Double hung 1/1 (interior Grounds/ Outbuildings Located on northeast side of L.W.E. i n a mixed resident/ commPrr.isl arpai I25. No. of Contributing Resources 1 I26. No. of Non-contributing Resources 0 Li 3 17. Condition 18. Integrity ❑ Excellent ❑ Unaltered ❑ Good )0 Altered Major [3 Fair ❑ Moved ❑ Deteriorated Date moved ❑ Ruins Other Asphalt shingle siding 24. SITE PLAN WA SRI 27. Envlrohment Residential on busy street N December 11, 1991 STAFF REPORT Mr. Joseph MacHatton, JMA Properties 621 Lincolnway East South Bend, IN 46601 PROPOSAL 1) repoint brick foundation. 2) remove/demolish rear shed/porch. 3) reroof main house with 3 -in --1 tab asphalt shingle. 4) replace gutters and eave troughs with contemporary counterparts. 5) rebuild chimney with new brick. 516NDAR_D_S, II. E_x_i_stingStructures A) Buld_ing Materials 1) Re9u.ired. Masonry structures shall be maintained, tuckpointed and properly cleaned when necessary. 2) Recommended Mortar joints should be repointed only when there is evidence of moisture problems or when sufficient mortar is missing to allow water to stand in the mortar joint. Existing mortar shall be duplicated in composition, color, texture, joint size, method of application and joint profile. 4) Nnt__Recommend ed Mortar joints that do not need repointed should not be. Repointing should not be done with a mortar of high Portland cement content which can often create a bond that is stronger than the building material. This can cause deterioration as a result of the differing coefficient of expansion and the differing porosity of the material and the mortar because they can cause serious damage to adjacent brick. B) Rgp.fs._. and .Roofing. 1) Requ_i_red. The existing shape and materials of the roof shall be retained. All architectural features which give the roof its essential character, such as ... chimneys ... shall be retained. 2) Recommended, Whenever possible, the original shape and materials of the roof should be restored. Particular effort should be made to retain materials ... not commonly found in new construction. Roof covering which is deteriorated beyond repair should be replaced with new material that matches as closely as possible the existing or original in composition, size, shape, color and texture. D) Entrances..x.._ Porc_hes.�..__.nd_.�5te.ps. Existing or original porches and steps ... shall be retained or replaced by replicas of the same design and materials when deteriorated beyond repair. Porches and additions reflecting later architectural styles, and which are important to the building's historic integrity shall be retained. 3) Proh,bited Porches and steps that are important to the building's style and development may not be altered or removed. RECOMMENDATIONS The building at 621 Lincolnway East was recently sited by the City Building Department for violation of maintenance and safety codes. The owner has applied for a Certificate of Appropriateness to begin the repairs necessary to bring the building to city code requirements. The MPC staff makes the following recommendations regarding the submitted renovation proposal: 1) The building's brick foundation is in need of tuckpointing a loose and inappropriate mortar repair is present. The staff suggests that the commission allow this repair as per standards II.A.(1,2,4). 2) The existing enclosed entry porch at the rear of the building has foundation/settling problems and is in an overall deteriorated condition. In that the porch is of minor significance to the buildings historic integrity (see standards II.D.(1,3) and cannot be seen from the street, the staff recommends that it be removed. The staff suggests that the commission make some kind of recommendation regarding the finishing of the newly exposed portion of the rear facade. 3) The staff recommends that the owner be permitted to replace the existing copper lok pattern asphalt shingle with 3 in 1 tab asphalt shingle. 4) The existing gutters are metal or aluminum half -round hanging gutters with aluminum downspouts. There is nothing specifically addressing gutters in the standards; replacing the existing with a contemporary aluminum gutter system will have a negligible effect on the building's roof profile and detailing. 5) The existing chimney is in deteriorated condition. The original brick has spalled heavily and cannot be reused in a reconstruction and the top portion of the existing has been rebuilt in the last twenty years in such a way as to be incompatible with the original. The staff recommends that the owner be permitted to rebuild the chimney with brick that matches the original in texture and color and in such a way as to replicate the height and proportion of the original chimney. November 22, 1991 STAFF._._REPORT Joseph J. Bellina III 1154 Lincolnway East South Bend, IN 46601 PROPOSAL Remove second floor door and door opening at rear of main house over one story extension. Infill with wood clapboard siding to match original siding of main house (original siding of main house is currently covered with asphalt shingle siding). STANDARDS II . Ex.sti ng_, Structures C) Windows and Doors 1) Re .gi.red Existing or original windows and doors, including sash, lintels, sills, shutters, decorative glass, pediments, hoods and hardware shall be retained or when deteriorated beyond repair, replaced with duplicates of the existing or original. 3) Prohibited Existing or original windows, doors and hardware shall not be discarded when they can be restored and reused in place. RECOMMENDATIONS. The staff recommends that the commission consider the following in the review of this project: A) The proposed project does not meet the requirements of standard II .C( 1) . B) Located at the rear of the house and not seen from the street, the existing opening, a multi -pane wood door and accompanying wood storm door, most likely dates from a later period than the circa 1905 Free Classic Queen Anne home. C) The owner plans to enclose the opening with siding that replicates the original siding of the house. D) In order to be in keeping with the contents of standard II.C(3), the owner must salvage and store the door and storm door to be removed. November 22, 1991 STAFF REPORT T. George Podell c/o Thomas Marullo 814 Arch Avenue South Bend, IN 46601 PROPOSAL. Apply non -yellowing breathable water repellent to brick (brand name "White Roc 7"). STANDARDS II. Existing Structures __ A) Building Materials 4) Not Recommended Waterproof or water repellent coatings or surface consolidation treatments should not be used unless required to solve a specific problem that has been studied and identified. Coatings are frequently unnecessary, expensive and can accelerate deterioration of the masonry. RECOMMENDATIONS The use of water repellents is discouraged but not disallowed by the standard sited above. The building's wall surface, composed of a brick first story and a wood clapboard second story, recently received a water wash to remove vine roots. The contractor wishes to apply the water repellent as a protection against masonry deterioration. As it appears from the street, the brick as it exists appears solid and in good condition. The staff recommends that the commission discourage the owner from applying the water repellent film. December 2, 1991 STAFF REPORT Dr. Francis Yeandel 325 W. Northshore Drive South Bend, IN 46617 PROPOSAL. Enclose existing inset second level balcony with decorative ironwork at rear of main building. Use aluminum siding to match siding currently covering building and install a pair of 6/6 double hung sashes (w/ double -pane, insulated glass) topped by a semi --circular transom light. STANDARDS, Introduction The standards place particular emphasis on those aspects of the structures on West North Shore Drive which can be viewed from West North Shore Drive. This is intended to retain the present streetscape intact, and still allow the property owners leeway in adjusting their property to their living style. D. Structures 1 ) BaS_icStructural .,._Material ._.,& Architectural Features a) Preferred Retain and maintain the original exterior building material. b) Permitted If vinyl or aluminum siding is the only economic solution to a deteriorating frame house, architectural detail must be visually preserved. 4) F?orches & Steps_ Wh.i,chAre Readi_l.y Vi. s_ib_1efr©m _Street E. Genera_l,. House alterations, restoration, preservation and rehabilitation shall be such as to not change a house to a style previous to its original style. RECOMMENDATIONS. The project as proposed is in -keeping with the West North Shore Drive Historic District standards and is therefore immediately eligible for a C of A. The project is being presented to the commission for review because of the significance of the building; it is a Sears Catalog Magnolia house, and although considerably altered, is a unique building to the City of South Bend from both a cultural and architectural standpoint. December 3, 1991 STAFF REPORT, William and Laurel Cochrane 519 Edgewater Drive South Bend, IN 46601 PROPOSAL. Replace eight aluminum double hung sashes at front porch (5 @ front, 1 @ south side, 2 @ north side) with vinyl clad wood double hung sashes with double insulated glass, applied muntins - top sashes to have six lights, bottom sashes to have one. Rough openings to remain the same; number of sashes per side to remain the same. Sashes to be Anderson Brand. STANDARDS I I . Existing _.___Str_uctures, C) Windows and Doors _.......__._...................__...._..._.__.........._................. 1) Requ_i_red Existing or original windows and doors, including sash ... shall be retained, or when deteriorated beyond repair, replaced with duplicates of the existing or original. 3) Prohibited Existing or original windows, doors and hardware shall not be discarded when they can be restored and reused in place. D) E_ntra_nces..,._Parches�,.a_nd _Steps, 1) Recommended When enclosing porches for heat conservation or other reasons it should be done in a manner that does.not alter the architectural or historical character of the building. 3) Prohib_i_ted. P_(3 rches and steps that are important to the building's style and development may not be altered or removed. RECOMMENDATIONS The porch is enclosed by eight thin, aluminum double hung sashes; these are not original nor do they qualify as historic. The proposed sashes are identical in size and shape to the original 6/1 double hung sashes that exist throughout the building. As per standards II.C(1,3) and II.D(1), the proposed sashes alter the architectural character of the porch and overall house fenestration that existed at the time of district implementation. The proposed sashes are introducing a multi -pane element to the Porch which will bring more emphasis to the porch fenestration than the existing. Also as a result of the proposed, the porch will be more integrated as an interior space whereas the existing fenestration lends to a transitory interior/open air space. It is the opinion of the staff that the porch originally had the transitory quality that it has today; that is, it relates to both the streetscape and the house interior; its character is that of a transitional, semi -private space. The introduction of the proposed sashes would eliminate this quality of the porch and from this standpoint, is an unsympathetic change to the architectural and historic quality of the building. However, the proposed windows do not alter existing rough openings and are typical of windows throughout. Also, from a materials standpoint, they are an improvement over the existing. ; _1, November 22, 1991 STAFF REPORT Joseph J. Bellina III 1154 Lincolnway East South Bend, IN 46601 PROPOSAL Remove second floor door and door opening at rear of main house over one story extension. Infill with wood clapboard siding to match original siding of main house (original siding of main house is currently covered with asphalt shingle siding). STANDARDS II. Existinz Structures C) Windows and Doors 1) Reauired Existing or original windows and doors, including sash, lintels, sills, shutters, decorative glass, pediments, hoods and hardware shall be retained or when deteriorated beyond repair, replaced with duplicates of the existing or original. 3) Prohibited Existing or original windows, doors and hardware shall not be discarded when they can be restored and reused in place. RECOMMENDATIONS The staff recommends that the commission consider the following in the review of this project: A) The proposed project does not meet the requirements of standard II.C(1). B) Located at the rear of the house and not seen from the'street, the existing opening, a multi -pane wood door and accompanying wood storm door, most likely dates from a later period than the circa 1905 Free Classic Queen Anne home. C) The owner plans to enclose the opening with siding that replicates the original siding of the house. D) In order to be in keeping with the contents of standard II.C(3), the owner must salvage and store the -door and storm door to be removed. 1. Rating ❑ Outstandl � ❑ Significant / Notable ® Contributing C/10 I4. mistonc N.W Elmer Miller 6. Address 1154 Lincolnway East Z. tJoun t. Joseph 5. To Portage 7. City South Bend partment of Natural Resources 12. Ownership Owner's Address (If different) ❑ Public In Private 18. Integrity 13. Use Present Past 14. Category Residence n [N T] Buliding(s) Commercial ❑ ❑ a District ❑ ❑ ❑ Site ❑ ❑ ❑ Structure ❑ Object 19. Time Period(s) 1905 Removals ❑ Yes gJ No o. survey No. 141-597-43002 Preliminary No. 141-597-67116 8. Quad Name In 15. Surveys / Legal Protections 16. Location Notes / Legal Description L.W.E. Local Historic Lot 15, 16, 33 Leer's Survey District Key # 18-7071-2598 20. Style(s) Colonial Revival/Queen Anne 22. SPECIFY ALTERATIONS Replacement I Additions 23. DESCRIPTION Stories 2 1/2 Plan Rectangular Fdti Rusticated concrete block 21. Architect / Builder oun a on (Wads Asbestos shingle avid aluminum siding Central truncated ( hip with gable intersects, dor ers. om simple Roof finials at eable ridges- Central brick chimney Ico bel d� in deteri.3rateq condition. Porches Full length front, elevated rough -cut stone base, doric column supoortSr Ion stone piers (paired at corners); central bay is bowed forward (Colonial 1r,cviva1 --1.u,'-LLL) (Openings 1/1 double -hung sashes with wood storms, front 2nd storev with too ` sashes with wood lattice work. Oriel windows at north side with bracket �uYY,D� L6, Day d-& �LeL Z� _ «d wi-nd—o L1 &u%A61.,,uL. C��.L�«1 L��.aL ca.Liy with M -o i solid wood door with 3/4 oval glazing (bevelled glass) with decorative Imetal work I Grounds / Outbulldinps Carriage house at rear; 2 storevs, central hip with gabl a (intersects, intermediate bell projection--tongue-in-groove below, wood shingle above. 4/1 dbl. hung sashes, sliding track doors, multi;. -pane casements. . 125. No. of Contributing Resources r 126. No. of Non-contributing Resources 27. Environmen South Bend East State Form 168221 Revised 1987 17. Condrtion 18. Integrity C3 Excellent ❑ Unaltered ❑ Good ® Altered major M Fair C3 Moved ❑ Deteriorated Date moved ❑ Ruins Other 24. SITE PLAN 0 T D.. ..; a., ..tel ..7 L....-. .. s.._.._� i` .1 t December 2, 1991 STAFF REPORT Dr. Francis Yeandel 325 W. Northshore Drive South Bend, IN 46617 PROPOSAL Enclose existing inset second level balcony with decorative ironwork at rear of main building. Use aluminum siding to match siding currently covering building and install a *&-Hr--of 6/6 double hung sashes (w/ double -pane, insulated glass) topped by a semi -circular transom light. . STANDARDS Introduction The standards place particular emphasis on those aspects of the structures on West North Shore Drive which can be viewed from West North Shore Drive. This is intended to retain the present streetscape intact, and still allow the property owners leeway in adjusting their property to their living style. D. Structures 1) Basic Structural Material & Architectural Features a) Preferred Retain and maintain the original exterior building material. - b) Permitted If vinyl or aluminum siding is the only economic solution to a deteriorating frame house, architectural detail must be visually preserved. 4) Porches & Steps Which Are Readilv Visible from Street E. General House alterations, restoration, preservation and rehabilitation -shall be such as to not change a house to a style previous to its original style. RECOMMENDATIONS The project as proposed is in keeping with the West North Shore Drive Historic District standards and is therefore immediately eligible for a C of A. The project is being presented to the commission for review because of the significance of the building; it is a Sears Catalog Magnolia house, and although considerably altered, is a unique building to the City of South Bend from both a cultural and architectural standpoint. e use of your blueprints my carpenter able to work without mistake or de- r bfll ofmaterials /was able io eeded for my house and no Yo catalog and low prices I to complete, plaster, paint and all, Feather came on. I saved as much as 7 some of the finishing lumber. /f / home, my millwork will come from k and Company kson, 1913 •t reason i elected to build a jack house was not to save Ont -day lumber, and It was my house built in the same old on that we saw before the war s, I wanted quantity, and, last, I it Whetherlsavedanymoney end / don care. /got exactly 'in entirety satisfied. / cannot he treatment / received from l am Particularly grateful for ?stions and interest in my more than this: /f it were uild another house, l would way- The Magnolia (1927), South Bend, Ind. The Magnolia was first featured in the 1918 Modem Homes cata- log, which advertised it for $5,140. (John Helmer) s an Air Force family, we have lived with ourfour C::;;'l children in many strange, wonderful and not -so - wonderful houses, large and small, throughout the world. In 1969, on retirement from the Air Force, .we purchased our dream house in South Bend, Ind., a two-story neo- classical structure built in 1927. R were very happy with our purchase, our first real home, and named it April House. 1% planted several magnolias in front. -R did some redecorating but left the kitchen as it was, with its blue and white tile floor. R are both cooks, and the kitchen became the heart of our home. It was the place for our cooking classes (Gourmet 101, Indiana Uni- versity at South Bend) and where the Notre Dame Cook Book was bom. Holidays, graduations, weddings and christenings were all an important part of the kitchen activities. In 1982 we discovered that our house was the Magno- lia, a Sears Honor Bill house. We were quite excited and very proud—we felt the house was true Americana. The magnolias in front had more meaning than ever before, and we planted several more along the side. And even though the children are gone, our dream house is still full—with students, family and friends. Francis A. and Florence G. Yeandel, 1986 South Bend, Ind. 13 1. Rating ❑ Outstanding CSignificant 1 Notable ❑ Contributing 4. Historic Name Max & Daisy Stryher 6. Address 325 W. North Shore Drive 2. County 3. Survey No. . S/11 St. Joseph ]41-45 21—C;QR 5. Township Preliminary No. Portage ❑ District 7 City 8. Quad Name 12. Ownership Owner's Address (if different) ❑ Public ❑Private 13. Use . Present Past 14. Category Residence X3 [X EX Building(s) Commercial ❑ ❑ ❑ District ❑ ❑ ❑ Site ❑ ❑ ❑ Structure ❑ Object 19. Time Period(s) (Dates) 1926 Removals Stories 2 South Bend, IN 46617 State of Indiana Department of Natural Resources State Form 168221 Revised 1986 11. Endangered Explain ❑ Yes -P No 15. Surveys I Legal Protections 16. Location Notes I Legal Description 17. Condition 18. Building Integrity W. North Shore Loc. His. 30' Northwesterly side Lot 135, ❑ Excellent 0 Unaltered Dis. Lot 136, Adj. River Bank, Pk. Add. q Good Altered t0 Navarre Pl . El Fair Moved ❑ Deteriorated Date -Building was moved 18-5129 4639 ❑ Ruins 20. Style(s) Neo Classical Revival Replacement Alum. storm windows 23. DESCRIPTION 21. Architect / Builder Max H. Stryher (Sears House -Magnolia)_______ _ 22. SPECIFY ALTERATIONS Additions Other Alum. siding I _ _ ___ 24. SITE PLAN 1 Plan Square w/projecting porches Foundation Brick Chim• eXsouthwoesstrsi angular r d hr ck CCanon walls Alum. siding w/8" to weather leaving no details except at entrance; Roof truncated pyramidal asphalt shingle roof w/front dormer wh=chhas_.. classic pediment. Roof peak has flat roof w/iron fence;_...____.__________________ Porches Classic porticod front entry, triple ionic columns on both fron_ corners, bracketed entablature + flat roof enclosed by wrought irorL_fe , 4 I N (Openings Dbl. hung 9/1 sash throughout; small divided transoms on main ,}'� Ifac d & pi re w'n ows• u h detail lost alum. siding. Single leaf ndea^-Ti a�� ; e -s man t raf -sflm; ----.... GroundsIOuttmw=s Site includes a newer frame Qaraae w/aDartme=1=_f_..a.....__._ Istyle tha =tracts from the house complex._ N 1 I I Roof truncated pyramidal asphalt shingle roof w/front dormer wh=chhas_.. classic pediment. Roof peak has flat roof w/iron fence;_...____.__________________ Porches Classic porticod front entry, triple ionic columns on both fron_ corners, bracketed entablature + flat roof enclosed by wrought irorL_fe , 4 I N (Openings Dbl. hung 9/1 sash throughout; small divided transoms on main ,}'� Ifac d & pi re w'n ows• u h detail lost alum. siding. Single leaf ndea^-Ti a�� ; e -s man t raf -sflm; ----.... GroundsIOuttmw=s Site includes a newer frame Qaraae w/aDartme=1=_f_..a.....__._ Istyle tha =tracts from the house complex._ Correspondence --CRM newsletter --December issue of Preservation News --November 11 MACIAF plans -on -file --Advertisement for resource guide just published by Nat'l Trust for Hist. Pres. --Invitation to attend United Way fundraising celebration. --Oct 28 MACIAF plans -on -file --October/November issue of Southhold Newsletter --November/December issue of Indiana Preservationist, the HLFI newsletter --September 26 Preservation Law Update --1992 subscription form from Preservation Law Update --July/August issue of.Preservation Law Reporter --Announcement of program sponsored by St. Joseph's Medical Center featuring AIDS and legal services issues. (Nov 20) --Announcement of a community forum on poverty Dec. 3 . -=November issue of MACIAF Monitor. --CRM newsletter, with supplement. --announcement of Holiday tour of historic homes in Indianapolis Dec. 8. --November 18 MACIAF plans -on -file. --announcement of a Dec. 8 HLFI open house in Indianapolis. --Invitation to a reception honoring F.J. Nimtz Dec. 2. --November issue of .YWCA Y -Line. --Press release from HLFI describing landmarks legal defense fund. --November 25 MACIAF plans -on -file. --questionnaire from the Commission on the Status of Women (for a future directory) --November/December issue of Common Ground (Conservation newsletter) --December 2 MACIAF plans -on -file --solicitation of dues from National Trust for Historic Preservation. --Fall issue of The Alliance Review from Nat'l Alliance of Pres. Commissions. --announcement of ICLEF conference (legal education) to be held in February. --advertisement for posters on the african-american experience --Empak's 1992 black history catalog --MACIAF Dec. 9 plans -on -file. Dec 9, 1991 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION.-- STAFF APPROVALS ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ST,# STREET NAME CATEGORIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION ------------------------------------ ------------------------------ 1028 Wayne Street (E) porches; roofing 1) In-kind replacement of porch as per C of A 1991-0403-1 w/ exception of structural supports changed to 2X8 members. 2) Replace roof in-kind w/ exception of T-lock shingle replaced by 3-block shingle & substitute 3/4 CDX plywood for decking. 3) Reroof main house same as porch. �. LINCOLITI?AY ;F.A SC ',e�iv� �.�-xr7�ic of �l�°i°rzofrtr�iJ. ` PDRESS LI.; D TE. REQUEST DECISION/COMMENTS 1422 Leer Stl: (1) 8/86 garage roof approved til: Il. garage door replacement approved �= porch replacement approved, but not — I I „ constructed 1422 Leer'St.' (1) 6/87 new porch/stoop approved aluminum siding approved–Variance I� e 1154 LWE ,. ;1) l. 1/86 removal of rear enclosed ' k i, 9/87 exterior stairway landscaping approved approved new garage approved 10/87 demo old garage approved special j meeting bec of 2 h accessory bldgs. 1216 LWE (4) 5/85 new roof approved i 8/85 tree removaIV rear parking lot approved ` 11/85 sign approved 4/86 fence/new garage approved; all of this was related to tax credit project. 1222 LWE (1) 5/85 shed removal from outbldg approved 1228 LWE (1) 9/88 new garage, approved 1 3 12i, LWE i 4 /86 reroof approved 1322 LWE''''f''I (1)( 7/85 A/C placement approved l� 1322 LWE (1) 3/88 front door replacement approved; also technical assistance 1414 for paint colors LWE (1) 4/87 new roof approved 1346 LWE T- _.. (1� - ... _ .1.1-/_85 , . tree removal_.: _.::: _-.. approved new sign approved paving rear approved porch/balustrade repairs approved Ottawa Court (1) 4/87 reroof garage - approved tree removal approved with LINCOLNWAY EAST HISTORIC DISTRICT: Certificate of Appropriateness Activity; 1989 -Present ADDRESS DATE REQUEST DECISION 1412 LWE 8-7-89 Replace Roof Approved 1352 LWE 106-89 Vinyl side exterior ApprovedL/�`+ 1342 LWE 8-16-89 Repair garage roof ApprovedL/ 1232 LWE 5-9-89 Install fence Approved 1228 LWE 5-5-89 Rebuild garage Approved 1212 Lwe 5-11-89 Replace Roof Approved 1172 LWE 9-8-89 Replace fence Approved 1164 LWE 8-23-89 Replace roof Approved 1154 LWE 7-26-89 Replace eaves;repair chimney and steps Approved 1154 LWE 6-11-90 Repair porch Approved 1346 LWE 8-7-91 Replace doors; vinyl / side rear facade Approved ✓ 1150 LWE 8-15-91 Reroof Approved 1334 LWE 7-17-91 Remove trees Approved 1154 LWE 7-2-91 Trim trees Approved HPC BIMONTHLY REPORT DECEMBER 1991 * Monroe Park Area study for historic district designation. * Lincolnway East study for preparation of public hearing. * Meetings with Near Northwest Neighborhood group regarding proposed local historic district. * Meetings and negotiations regarding the landmark designation of the Southern Hotel, 802 S. Main St. * Meeting with representatives of DHPA in Indianapolis. * Attendance of DHPA National Register workshop in Indianapolis. * Attendance of HLFI workshop in Lakeville. * Creation of standards for architectural drawings for C of A proposals. * Suzanne'Booker reinstated as contracted employee. * C of A committee met once to discuss a tabled application. * Second meeting with County Archivist regarding negative storage and preservation of research files. * C/10 research on quadrants from Phase V of city resurvey (quadrant 54). * Investigation of joint DHPA/HPC, South Bend database for survey information. * Meetings with representatives of Computer Associates regarding data entry of original survey catalog. Project underway. * On going reorganization, revamping and computerization of office files. * On going correction and sorting of information from Phases IV and V of city resurvey. * Intensive fieldwork for Phase 6 in progress. Approved by the Historic Preservation Commission: December 16, 1991. MINIMUM_MAINTENANCE STANDARDS All landmarks and all contributing structures located in an historic district shall be preserved from decay and deterioration, and shall be maintained in good repair and kept structurally sound. The owner or other person having charge or control of landmarks and property in an historic district shall not allow or permit deterioration of such property from defects or conditions which in the judgment of the Commission produce a detrimental effect on the character of the district as a whole or the life and character of the landmark, structure or property in question, including but not limited to: a. Deterioration of exterior walls or other vertical supports causing conditions such as splitting, leaning, buckling, crumbling, visible cracking or similar conditions; b.' Deterioration of roofs or other horizontal members causing conditions such as sagging, splitting, buckling, crumbling, holes, missing shingles or similar conditions; C. Deterioration of external chimneys causing such conditions as.listing, settling, bulging, crumbling, holes, loose or missing materials or similar conditions; d. The deterioration or crumbling of exterior plasters or mortar; e. The ineffective waterproofingof exterior walls, roof and foundations, including broken windows or doors; f. The peeling of paint, rotting, holes and other forms of decay; g. The lack of maintenance of surrounding environments such as fences, gates, sidewalks, steps, signs, accessory structures and landscaping; h. The deterioration of any feature so as to create or permit the creation of any hazardous or unsafe condition or conditions. The Commission shall give notice by certified or registered mail of each specific instance of failure to maintain or repair. The owner or person in charge of such structure shall have twenty (20) days to respond in writing by identifying specifically the corrective and remedial steps to be taken. �certificate of appropriateness shall not be required forosuch repair unless such repair results in a conspicuous change in the design, form, proportione mass, configuration, building material, texture, color, location, or external visual appearance of any structure or part thereof. In the latter circumstance, a certificate of appropriateness shall be required. AMD/MISC:ORD-HIST REQUIREMENTS FOR ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS FOR CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS New Construction. Additions. Porch Additions 1. Site Plan * Site plan drawing or aerial photo showing entire site and principal street, proposed changes -- i.e. building addition or new construction, as they relate to existing features (i.e. principal building, outbuildings, existing landscape features, walks, and drives). * North Arrow with North facing top of page (conventional architectural standard). * Drawings to scale (i.e. 1"=20', 1"=30'). * Label drawings. 2. Elevations * Include all elevations of new construction. * Include all elevations of.additions as they relate to existing building(s). * Label drawings (i.e. East Elevation, West Elevation, Street Elevation). * Drawings to scale (i.e. 1/8"=1', 1/4"=1') 3. Floor Plans * Include all floor plans of new constructions and additions. * Label drawings (i.e. 1st level floor plan, 2nd level floor plan) and dimension plans. * North Arrow with North facing top of page (conventional architectural standard). * Drawings to scale "(i.e. 1/8"=1', 1/4"=1') 4. Miscellaneous (oational) * Old photographs * Three dimensional drawings, helpful for describing the Window and Door Alterations models, details, etc. which are work. Elevations * Draw elevations showing appearance of building with proposed windows and/or doors. Include accurate representation of existing openings. * Label drawings (i.e. East Elevation, West Elevation, Street Elevation). * Drawings to scale (i.e. 1/4"=1', 1/2"=1') New Landscape Design Site Plan * Site plan drawing showing entire site and principal street, proposed changes -- i.e. new landscape features as they relate to existing features (i.e. principal building, outbuildings, existing landscape features, walks, and drives). * North Arrow with North facing top of page (conventional architectural standard). * Drawings to scale (i.e. 1"=20', 1"=30'). * Label drawings. COMMISSION MEETING VISITOR ROLL NOVEMBER 18, 1991 Visitors: Please fill in your name and organization (if applicable) so your presence can be officially recorded for the Commission's records. Thank you. 1 21 2 �� ,y -- 22 Y - 3 %� 1\ f � �z� YO& 23 4 - '. 24 5 25 6 `vV� v� ra �, L.. 26 27 28 A - 10 /vFL So v L ,SG 30 rr n� L 1 1-JoSsz Q� 1"C1C ' &tLoy-, 31 12 32 2 _ 13 33 Y' 14 34 15 35 16 36 17 37 18 38 19 39 20 40