The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutApril 1996AGENDA OF THE REGULAR MEETING of the HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular monthly meeting County Commissioner's 7:30 p.m. Conference Room Monday, April 15, 1996 7th Floor County City Bldg • I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Public Hearing A. Certificates of Appropriateness 1. 24888 Old Cleveland Road - Fence 2. 1608 Devon Circle - window replacement 3. 52407 Grape Road - New detached garage 4. 1093 Riverside Drive - comprehensive landscaping phase one 5. 525 Edgewater - replacement of porch columns 6. 619 Edgewater - picket -fence IV. Regular Business A. Approval of Minutes 1. March 18, 1996 B. Treasurer's Report C. Correspondence D. Committee Reports 1. Budget & Finance 2. Legal 3. Historic Districts 4. Historic Landmarks a. Status of recommendations to Common Council - 534 LaPorte Avenue (Starzynski Texaco Gasoline Station) 3418 Mishawaka Avenue 130 Park Lane • 30750 Inwood Rd. b. Leeper Park LL proposal c. request for 16581 Chandler Blvd. 5. Standards & Maintenance a. 221 West North Shore Drive 6. Personnel a. interviews b. intern E. Staff Reports 1. C of A Staff Approvals a. 24845 SR 23 - In-kind repairs of corn crib 2. DHPA Grant status a. National Register nominations b. Economic Benefits Study 3. Legal V. Old Business VI. New Business VII. Hearing of Visitors VIII. Announcements & Miscellaneous Matters IX. Adjournment • • NOTES FOR TONIGHT'S MEETING JOHN OXIAN HAS INSTRUCTED ME TO PASS ON TO ALL OF YOU THAT THERE IS TO BE NO MENTION OF. DISCUSSION OF. NOR EXPLAINATION OF 130 PARK LANE AT TONIGH'T MEETING. THIS IS BEING RESCHEDULED TO MAY'S MEETING. CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES OF MONDAY, MARCH 18, 1996: The Approval Of Minutes will be tabled until next meeting, due to some items to be presented wherein those persons who have such changes are not present at tonight's meeting. D. COMMITTEE REPORTS is 3. The President has instructed ALL COMMITTEES to meet prior to the May meeting, and to put together their three year plan. 4. HISTORIC LANDMARKS: a. Status Of Recommendations To Common Council: 1 . 534 LaPorte Avenue (Was withdrawn at the March meeting) 2. 3418 Mishawaka Avenue (At City Council tonight) 3. 130 Park Lane (Remove from Agenda) 4. 30750 Inwood Road (Accepted Application) C. 1. 16581 Chandler Blvd. (Conduct 1 st & 2nd Reading tonight) d. 1 . 501 West Colfax (Conduct 1st Reading tonight) 0 CERTIPICATE OP APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT • APPLICATION -- 1996-0319 PROPERTY -- 24888 Old Cleveland Rd. South Bend, IN OWNER -- Charles Spiher DESIGNATION -- Local Landmark RATING -- Outstanding (0/13) STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE HISTORIC CONTEXT This Greek revival house features an Italianate Porch. The oldest portion of the house was originally constructed circa 1855 by or for Aaron Miller. A portion at the rear was apparently relocated from the hill behind the house. The building was constructed from timber cut on the site. After the death of Aaron's widow, Mary, their son, Aaron assumed ownership. At his death the property was willed to a boy who had lived with the family. The farmhouse and its outbuildings appear in an illustration in the 1875 Atlas. PROPOSED CHANGE The owner proposes to construct a wood board fence approximating that shown in the 1875 Atlas along the Cleveland Road frontage of the house. The gate, locations will be established to serve the present use of the site. • STANDARDS The Preservation Guidelines and Standards for Local. Landmarks state: Group B C.2. Construction and Style - All work should be done in the architectural style and in a technique compatible with that of the original structure..... C.3. Materials - Additions and improvements involving any new material in the building should be of the same material as the original. It should be the same size and texture. An alternative material may be allowed if it duplicates the original. RECOMMENDATION The proposed fence is consistent with the historical evidence available and represents a valuable reconstruction of a previously destroyed site feature. Staff recommends approval of this application. David B. Duvall 4/9/96 • ! � �,,.M1/ems � 3.t � " t f� �L '�P a;k tktt>:•. j 'Gib 't •-.. aa sx�ti, y ',�r_.�. � �� t �s.i Ta ��t � L `�" .r�r'^'a."b't.R1 :ir�t�ri'r ��5�'XC'f..iiL�:-_ . `riMiz/,'rF'°T.�'..e. ':'h. "iSi�f ��.tc� ,,; zt�yj!- l�..y.�_ v} ar U': � v r t. yr'.X y�i'4t. � .� ,4'�,•�`„Y t >. ,' _ r � �c4 C�.arN r. jy, T �` >�•.. `• .�?i� :a+..r s< 1Y,, l 7. t of ..r t'M il• J s n� �'v -tk,:X-� .�fe ' ' r+'.c' t i.\1;f + n.. „ra *� »v;q i :.dam �'��i.J'�' �r�•+' �; .�". jt.� t*�. r_F3; 1,, . � G � !! F _��/.'• .t _. ` r . 'i d [ �,;1 i t .r �r1H +r.v r - s -,� � � .t .KI' „ 1r r � � / / �R�.. y ♦� :�: t w,. jY '..i�t y � a ,y �, j /,, ��' t �>~ s :..Cy t� c t � � s f � � � . :`: r... _•.!.: t rr s 1. � r¢t t .� t �� a , 'r ! i`. r „�4 ..t 1' � A �%/ � /fir _ // .;_ � , . • . . _ .• �• .i-;.; �, - . ,ti � . • �• ^` .,. ... ... .,. t.. .. .. .. t.._ �_, _ar•...5'rArrriC�.:L�a...r . u.,... � �.. , ... tl i•. � � ,_. OT uwner Telephone: 215- 28 1 ,igI JECT: OjO N�'� 11MJ�//7t1� � % ,�QAVl1�? %t"&- saaT,Li L tion Sheet . [a Addendum to Certificate -mat i on as applicable to : the particular -situation and the BA shall also be submitted as part of this application: Jraw i ngs and specifications, or site -plan, floor �00r_it& it i ons , cross section plans, renderings, diagrams, or 5c��O- 1 a n s . HPOSev plans. ;Pec If I or •oposed project includes a sign, a scale drawing showing,,,, of the sign on the structure or property,.the type of ind the method of illumination. ULK,IrIGA'IE Ur AYYKUPRiATN.NESS STAFF REPORT • APPLICATION -- 1996-0325 PROPERTY -- 1608 Devon Circle South Bend, IN OWNER -- Wellington & Andrea Jones DESIGNATION -- Local Landmark RATING -- Significant (S/11) STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE/HISTORIC CONTEXT This Tudor Revival house was designed by Ernest W. Young in 1925 and is unusual for his work was usually in the Prairie style. The house was original built for Andrew C. Weisberg, the owner and manager of the Oliver Hotel and located on East Jefferson Blvd. east of Ironwood in the Tuxedo Park replat of Jefferson Heights. In 1935, the house was purchased by Ivar Hennings, president of the South Bend Bait Company. In 1954 it was sold to the adjacent South Bend Osteopathic Hospital which utilized it as an accessory structure until expansion called for its removal in 1977. At this time, the house was moved to its present location by its new owner, Thomas Podell. The building was established as a Local Landmark in its new location in 1978. PROPOSED CHANGE The owner proposes to replace two existing casement windows and eight existing • double hung windows which have aluminum storm windows with new Pella Designer series wood casement windows with wood muntin inserts on the inside of the double glazing. The windows are all located on the second story at the north and west sides. The aluminum storms are to be removed. STANDARDS The Preservation Guidelines and Standards for Local Landmarks state: Group B C.2. Construction and Style - All work should be done in the architectural style and in a technique compatible with that of the original structure..... C.3. Materials - Additions and improvements involving any new material in the building should be of the same material as the original. It should be the same size and texture. An alternative material may be allowed if it duplicates the original. RECOMMENDATION The existing structure has a mixture of double -hung and casement windows. Although some of the windows which are to be replaced are double -hung, the casement windows which are proposed for replacement are consistent with the style of the house and will not violate the integrity of its design or alter its appearance appreciably from the public view. The proposed windows will fit existing openings and painted wood will effectively match existing details. Staff recommends approval of this application. • David B. Duvall 4/9/96 Clad Casement Designer Classic" • Aluminum -clad exterior units protected by Pella® EnduraCladTM or EnduraCladTM Plus fluorocar- bon -based (Kynar® 500) finish system. • Sash/panel and frame members are select soft- wood, preservative -treated to resist damage from water and insects. Clear pine on window and door interior. Product Features • Glazing is 5/8" Clear insulating glass or InsulShield® argon -filled, multi -layer low -E coated insulating glass for energy-efficient performance. • Corrosion -resistant hardware for seacoast envi- ronments. Champagne color is standard finish, white and brass hardware optional. • Optional removable wood muntins with steel - pinned joints. Wood Casement Designer Classic" � I •N . Wood Casement — y ® Windows Designer Product Summaryy " DC7 -1 FEATURES Exterior frame and sash surfaces are factory -primed and ready for site finishing. PERFORMANCE • Meets or exceeds NWWDA Rating DP40 DP40 Designer Classier Requirements . Casement ' Design Pressure 40 psf 40 psf* Structural Test Pressure 60 psf 60 psf Water Penetration 6.0 psf 6.24 psf Air Infiltration 0.15 cfm*** 0.05 cfm*** Operating Force 35 lbs 12 in-lbs/20 lbs** * Design pressure performance when glazed with the appropriate glass thickness. See Design Data Chart for design pressure maximums for each unit. ** Opening/closing torque of standard crank and lock lever operating force respectively. *** cfm/ftrof frame at 1.57 psf wind pressure See General Performance section of this manual for more information. • Sash and frame members are select softwood, preserva- tive -treated to resist damage from water and insects. Clear pine on window interior. • Sash corners are joined three ways (mortise and tenon, glue, and metal fasteners) for increased strength. • Corrosion -resistant hardware for seacoast environments. Operator crank and lock handle finish is Champagne. • When sash is fully vented, both sides of the glass can be washed from roomside. • On casements taller than 29", the SureLockTM System operates upper and lower sash locks in! unison with a single handle. • Glazing is 5/8" Clear insulating glass or InsulShield® • argon filled, multi --layer low -E coated insulating glass for energy-efficient performance. SIZES • 40 standard vent/fixed sizes • 30 standard large fixed sizes • 15 standard transom sizes • 15 egress sizes • Special sizes available OPTIONS • Glazing - 5/8" Clear I.G. - 5/8" InsulShield° I.G. - 5/8" Bronze, Gray or Obscure I.G. - Custom glazings • Roomside-mounted pleated shades • Removable wood muntins • White or Brass hardware (sold separately) • Flat black fiberglass insect screens or Pella Rolscreee self -storing insect screens • Interior, unfinished or custom factory-prefinished Wood Casement Windows 2: 4P to Unit Sections DC7 -8 I -- ,T- (5 uj Lu cc LL 0 4-3/8' (111) HEAD M rT 13/16* (21) 3/4" 1/2* (19) 5-7/16* (138) SILL 3/16!� (21) 7 Scale 6" = 1'0" Designer S E R! E S 1 -5132' 1-5/32* - .—j F (211 1 7 7- Cli 3/16' (5) 1-7/8" Wood Brickmould 3116' Dashed line indicates optional (:5) shorter crank handle.3-1/2" Wood BrIckmould All unit dimensions are approximate. Lu 4-3/8* i-� (111) JAMBS H. Designer S E R I E S Standard i( 5/8" Clear or Insulating Glass InsulShield® I.G Glazing Parameters • Maximum glass width to height ratio: Annealed glass 1 to 5 Tempered glass 1 to 10 (1/8" Tempered cannot exceed 36" in both di- rections.) • Casement glazing options are limited by a maxi- mum weight of 56 pounds for operating sash. • All doors are glazed with tempered glass. Casement Sash is Glazing Optiol Special Custom Quote 5/8" Bronze, Contact your local Gray or Representative for Obscure I.G.* custom glazing and muntin options. * Obscure glass must be tempered. • Glazing weight can be calculated using the lowing: Glass Width (in inches) x Glass Height inches) x Total Glass Thickness (in Incl Divided by 11 equals weight in pounds. • Standard clear annealed glass thickness: < 10.7 sq. ft.: 3/32" (2.5mm) > 10.7 < 18.0 sq. ft.: 1/8" (3.Omm) 40 >18.0 sq. ft.: 5/32" (4.Omm) • See Product Performance Section for High f tude glass requirements. muntin Optio- 3/4" Profile Colonial Profile Removable Muntin Parameters • Colonial profile is a custom order item. • Muntins are steel -pinned at joints and fitte sash with steel clips and tacks. • Surfaces are unfinushed, ready for site fit CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT • APPLICATION -- 1996-0402 PROPERTY -- 525 Edgewater South Bend, IN OWNER -- Nancy TenBroeck DESIGNATION -- Edgewater Place Local Historic District RATING -- Contributing (C/9) STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE/HISTORIC CONTEXT This Dutch Colonial Revival house was built in 1922 by Whitcomb & Keller. The house was purchased by Emma Oppenheim in 1923. Ms. Oppenheim's daughter and son-in-law, David Glicksman, the proprietor of the Broadway and Rex Pharmacies, also resided here. They assumed ownership in 1931 and remained in the residence until 1956 when they donated the property to the Hebrew Orthodox Congregation. PROPOSED CHANGE The owner proposes to replace the existing bent -metal porch columns with square wood columns with a wooden railing. STANDARDS The Preservation Guidelines and Standards for the Edgewater Place Local • Historic District state: II.A.(1) Required - Existing exterior building materials shall be retained. Deterioration of wood materials shall be prevented through repair, cleaning, & painting. The existing or original architectural detail around windows, porches, doors, and eaves shall be retained or replaced by replicas of the same design and material when deteriorated beyond repair. II.A.(2) Recommended - Whenever possible, original building materials should be restored.... RECOMMENDATION Though documentary evidence is not known, the proposed replacement of the metal columns with wood columns and railing may be presumed to constitute a reconstruction approximating the original features of the house. Staff recommends approval of these items as conforming to the guidelines. It may prove desirable to reconsider the rating of the house following this activity. DBD 4/9/96 • U • C J 11 CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT APPLICATION -- 1996-0401 PROPERTY -- 52407 Grape Rd. South Bend, IN OWNER -- Cletus Snellenburger DESIGNATION -- Local Landmark RATING -- Significant (S/12) STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE/HISTORIC CONTEXT This Greek revival house was constructed by or for James Harris around 1843. It was sold to Charles K. Pulling in 1856 who's sons served in the Civil War. It was sold again in 1865 to Thomas Longley who had been one of the early pioneer settlers having come to the county among the first wave of white settlement in the early 1830s. After his death in 1894, the property was divided among his heirs. The house was pictured in the 1875 Atlas. PROPOSED CHANGE The owner proposes to construct a standard garage as shown on the site plan submitted gable wall facing the street. The exterior similar to the rear addition to the home. fiberglass shingles. The structure will be lumberyard garage kit. STANDARDS twenty four foot square wood frame with 16 foot overhead door in the is to be finished in vinyl siding The 4/12 pitch roof will receive fabricated from a standard The Preservation Guidelines and Standards for Local Landmarks state: Group B C.2. Construction and Style - All work should be done in the architectural style and in a technique compatible with that of the original structure..... C.3. Materials - Additions and improvements involving any new material in the building should be of the same material as the original. It should be the same size and texture. An alternative material may be allowed if it duplicates the original. RECOMMENDATION The proposed garage is discretely located behind the house and between the house and barn. The garage does not materially affect the existing structures. Though the design could be more sensitive to the historical character of the farmstead, it does not in any way damage historical material or interfere with the public appreciation of the historic buildings. Staff recommends approval of this application. David B. Duvall 4/9/96 FARM RESIDENCE or THOMAS LONGLF-y ESQ., CLAY Tp. STJOSEPH CO., IND. d L .,.i::. ....... • V ` h � 50-0343.51 loco 1!1.08 344•'3 (02-2017) 49-134349 l-03¢5.of 0;'_•20!7 5\)�. Go � 43G.au � /f�� j4Y.51 x•0345.02 G/Y. St b h 163.48 4/1.78 /ow ax lit 400 SG y 34-8G34V M cs? 3 ' �� ✓ 6,41S> 02-2017 051 494F:0611 as o °y 60 p�pBENN, NIJVG r U • N4•�4 sP V`F•� Y9a � p'1''r, ;� rYar3 _ 39-8632 v v bt lan ras,re u• g Q � ry1 a 60 e 7].J: 02-20 7 v`^ p t C V O 4 G�0R i 70.14 " 13 h r U M 3-0346.04 ni 0 100 « « r loo Q0 Jlaarloo gd.N3 a !aa Y a F,G1A� GEC Ci VV h 02�tif85 ti w w ~/ f! o 2-0346.03 S Gats too /Gs 111.059 j• i0 no V (02-20171 4-21F 4 h p.47 sSO7 4.4 ~ !00 lab a•7° 4, US —1- f �-G3o.o4 o w . o u � RDoa I��',Jp WN ,G•3G 64.47 ' 's� 60�, A a3 02-2017 ' t ` GS 874 � s :2-2,2 G4-873 !s / h " Z . �. +0 o t >9. 1n.t8 O too «p too 83.87 • 19y 1 a! M WG' !se + Sr/ � ti tao n r4o rZ h m m J - r ti �vim• � too .� �, « .. too Ya23 r 48 4 R3 VALLEY FORGEfi 1340 �. y��cJig- 1.1_ Ys,Sd 100 « « r loo 60 ? h a Y a F,G1A� GEC Ci VV h 02�tif85 ti w w �l! nom! k3 111.059 j• i0 no 4-21F Ih" _, to 8735 10f.7f Afo /as lM.GG CLAY TWP. Et/z NXIA SEC. 21 T.38N. RZE. 0 CLAY TWP. Et/z NXIA SEC. 21 T.38N. RZE. }1orXTr01✓K d - �n+T,��epb' �'a GC'4*00a4txls. l?Cyas --------__..... f t ti t + 7S 1' CV mill •Q rt r �y \r s d' v ap i d q C`t a5.3S w V $ cir J • 5p 344-13 t toG z7�.o5 4 5 p� v l Gj 50.0343 Q�I.p84 o �? ttf.b4 m 7,30 v , ogla90 �? t7J t3 � ate; n a �C7 c,201't 5 � .o 49.034344 0 034343 0 "Zar3ca � �Q� 2•Sat.S a 39.p3 20�Z eq�a " A&a KENT ass r4 GN.34 44 R t t779G ( G4S l3,0! 47-0343.47 u t. j0s.a= a av n^ ,S 154.65 1ti�b o ~ J rh�v ti n h 43.45 h r$G-0343.4� v CO tG5•aa r 803 0 g o 4) Q2 2Q�7 h r,3 G o Q 4�.p$ t'�fltoz*G .+ 3�l/�8 4 Q p��p a p O lV iso td1.t d C7�/G• °� f .ra,,� a S itfd ♦3.f > ,�s AA 0) t3 o i .43 VIS .,� •t � 't< r NI G sb o M33�BG339.034Gt0 k -G �� tf{7 R �+�. 3.03k(a 04 v s tw•a y SARA$ 32.gG32 v io`Gj� n oOrl Op I�8031 `Q• 111-43 roo t/ a 01 o v w a 3 Pat /.0346 •~+ v t O " ott - t6S 1D 1L too o ti e4 (00 : its i •rte 1 2 2 VG o ?�,. •� nl t7d.4 !34.7 •C 4 n 63.11 t7p1f 17 $ to � thbV h �,Ii qG ' nl !PD C RD. 0 w* a tt✓✓ too 4447 u "tf (p�f ro9.3s 'f of tp p 02_20{1 t n sr6 s: 3 RSRE�GS ��. s� N ,� rO`►'KT O -0346.11 $ t5o•1 ~ Go 4•P rolaf 13 �QI� t3o' jG4-8139 H 4� ro.f� a OZ 207 o _G5 -874o ltd°' � o = •}' r � tfo � m [�'_ Qf o o to -87.48 riV's 4"-1 too r a + a roiss =, 4rH y. gs f�0 1q . AS�''° pR;NCETC � T. a- Vis= .i a SO,* ew r• u1 �• � too {�.1 � to t: 'd" �r .7� w° ti3S � •r tM+ '^ r a ih .d. v V �' �r .�� n .° � 4 � •� d 40.13 GO M s a0 N too RGE too �- ^ kr `Ey FO a y U v w. ' �l M3 .O AI.. r. `O ( n < Uy„ I too .. _ 1 H d � a �y .il _•tt I 4-2 F Y AWP• R3E' N W 1 �4 fpp'`� • .1w 11 CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT APPLICATION -- 1996-0401-2 • PROPERTY -- 1093 Riverside Drive South Bend, IN OWNER -- Marsha Stevenson DESIGNATION -- Riverside Drive Local Historic District RATING -- Significant (S/12) STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE/HISTORIC CONTEXT This Prairie Style house was built circa 1910 and was probably designed by Ernest W. Young. The first owner occupant, Dr. Milton P. White (retired) purchased the house in 1911. The house was occupied by Donald A. Himes, a sales manager for Oliver's in 1916. PROPOSED CHANGE The owner proposes to install phase one of a comprehensive landscaping program including: 1) tree trimming 2) relocation of an existing plum tree 3) relocation of a burning bush 4) plant new yellow rose bush 5) removal of volunteer tree 6) removal of recently planted spirea • 7) removal of concrete sidewalk in rear yard 8) plant viburnum in rear yard 9) plant around air conditioning unit including trellis at rear of house 10) plant flowering juneberry in rear yard STANDARDS The Preservation Guidelines and Standards for Riverside Drive state: I.B.1. Required Plants, trees, fencing, walkways, private yard lights, signs (house numbers), and benches which reflect the property's history and development shall be retained I.B.2 Recommended New site work should be based upon actual knowledge of the past appearance of the property found in photographs, drawings and newspapers. New site work should also be appropriate to existing surrounding site elements in scale, type, and appearance..... I.B.3 Prohibited No changes may be made to the appearance of the site by removing old plants, trees, fencing, walkways, outbuildings, or other elements before evaluating their importance to the property's history and development..... RECOMMENDATION • The owner is going to some lengths to develop a plan which consistent with historic patterns and appropriate species. Plants which are being relocated UnIkIlrIUA11•, VI' AVMVMIAIL`NEZ1 J 51Ark itl•,L'V1C1' VVI are not of sufficient age as to be of original importance to the historic structure. The walkway in the being removed from the rear yard is of dubious • historical date and is rendered ambiguous by subsequent yard developments. Staff recommends approval of this application. David B. Duvall 4/9/96 • 1093 Riverside Drive • South Bend, IN 46616 March 30, 1996 David Duvall Historic Preservation Commission 1123 County -City Building South Bend, IN 46601 Dear David, Enclosed is an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for exterior landscaping at 1093 Riverside Drive in the Riverside Drive Local Historic District. In our meeting earlier this month, I gave you copies of the two landscaping plans we are considering. The first was prepared by David Barncourt of Landscapes Unlimited; the second by Garry Roberson of McKinley Terrace Garden Center. We like elements of both, and may choose to adopt some parts of each plan. In either case, this is something we intend to do gradually, over a period of several years. You may see a series of C of A applications, from us. • Initial steps we would like to take a e are these. Front vard. 1) Trim the overhanging branches of the silver maple on the adjoining property at 1095 Riverside, as recommended in the Barncourt plan. We have consulted with the McDonnells and they are in full support of this. This trimming is needed to give more light to the existing dogwood tree at the northeast corner in front of our house. 2) Move the small (5') plum tree which is along the front sidewalk, near 1095. This tree needs much more light if it is to flourish. We would like to move it to the sunny spot recommended by Dave Barncourt, closer to the house and on the other side of the front yard, near 1091. If it survives the move we may plant a few small shrubs, such as goldflame spirea, to surround it. We have a secondary purpose in wishing to move the plum • tree. The large silver maple on our property is not in good condition and may not survive many more years. When it needs to be taken out we want to plant another type of maple, probably a sugar, along the front sidewalk. The plum tree certainly would need to be removed then. 3) Relocate the burning bush which is presently along the sidewalk at the southeast corner of our front yard, adjacent to 1091, to the northeast corner, near 1095. Surround it with a barberry shrub, a hosta, and some perennials (Ajuga) as suggested by Garry Roberson. 4) Plant a yellow rose bush where the burning bush was removed, and form a bed, defined by a red brick border, in the general shape that Garry suggests. Plant Ajuga in that bed. Side Yard. 5) Remove the slender "volunteer" tree that has seeded itself between our house and the McDonnells, near the dining room windows of both houses. In its place plant either a weeping crabapple, as recommended by Roberson, or a thornless hawthorne, as suggested by Barncourt. We are consulting with the McDonnells in selection of this tree. Back Yard. 6) Remove the existing row of spirea (planted five years ago) from the fence along the northwest, adjoining 1095.. Plant a row of Amur Privet, as suggested by Dave Barncourt. 7) Remove the curving concrete walk; retain the red brick one. Add a small patio of red brick at the foot of the stairs leading from the porch, as shown in the Barncourt plan. Our back yard presently has two walks from the door to the garage; these are shown in the Roberson plan. We wish to remove the curving concrete one since it is lower than the yard and water collects there; it was a sheet of ice all winter. We would like to retain the red brick walk and expand on it a bit to form a small seating area, in lieu of the wooden deck we removed last summer. Another reason we would like to remove the concrete walk is to maximize the central grassy area of the yard; thus we do not favor v the Roberson plan which retains both walks and puts a tree and shrubs between them. 8) At the left of the back door (as you face the house from the vard) plant a Carlesi (Koreanst)ice) Viburnum. 9) At the right of the back door plant a Mugo Pine between the steps and the air conditioner; put a goldflame spirea on the other side of the air conditioner; and add a trellis and plant a red climbing rose just beyond. These are shown on the Roberson plan. 9) Plant an Amelanchier tree (a flowering white Juneberry) along the southeast fence, as shown on the Barncourt plan. This is near the Crumlishes' kitchen window, so we consulted with them and they approved this plan. At one time there was a magnolia tree in the back yard, and our original intention was to replace it. However, both landscapers recommended strongly against it; the yard is too small to support a tree of that shape and size. In fact, we had to replace the wooden siding along the back of the house that had been damaged by contact with the magnolia. Please let me know if you have questions about any of these initial steps we would like to take. I hope that you can follow them; this is rather complex! Call meat home (237-1972) or work (631- 7665) if I can provide any more information. Marsha Stevenson oakleap 1 Hy3rax.rc jjotw.w $aS�. C.eb�a4e�si Ke.9 -t o vies td. variek%P- c4 0 n �E> U S 1 (j Y-1 -for- 109Z or109.3 Rivsrstde, :Dr. Soath $ervi • lmcltatta. • 46616 ad 3rtuek: ,., (c,vafi'S.� GX+S SMS r •-ri+�« tv rot�xv L`O tJ�! ' l - t.Cea+MG o},y!' Z Ti\ercsc. �� }te{z� t.,�+lC �lcwor�•• di..+.�ne-1` poSwoed 5 J•�e.6en•�/ R1rsJ.rie.�row %N�rabella Francee s3) -Rose, ®P��Monartd 1,G)Ars.Mwv A-A�.�a\ s�yGl.wr r %�+az Jeweii' { WtcLe Brtrr\ ' lncorporatmg exis�mq Slant ma-fertdi unto c1 rr\mInNal main�e-ance garden ��i}-c�f^►^�J_. �p („1h.� Ci✓ Gold Standard 1.�: 5 tit{1\ lcnS-SEc35ah lolt'C"U avr) �ra5farxe , ,,4 var- 4`auv)4* Cc-tcr ov r �or+�. 1 ) 1 M�Kt�..i �t►��rt�r�ce aar an ('�err+P_r- RS Root S+ar"dard C. Rear brier toakA coeAve-d 4o avn rv\41r Me. 50AtiY\q area. )�.�a�,��a� �.1 •j�j S� � �K2* N,t�,•�(ct�tiS eFranets 1n1,ttiarns �' KR Kro�sa Regal t11 6 • ��'� Fh�ner.t2t9� �S_ s-t�i(4 FAX 2SS- 5�,�� 'Is"-- t' 2.25.95 • E •E, � J,,J�j 00:10"ro -4,-) I_el i �-llol Oc t.A,,j"4.01 `7vlVA\ rklw" Ai N VIP ty. Ina 05V 0? 47& lel-lcka is '71.;. , qj - Wop , V)t • • • CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT APPLICATION -- 1996-0405 PROPERTY -- 619 Edgewater South Bend, IN OWNER -- Dean & Amy VanDyke DESIGNATION -- Edgewater Place Local Historic District RATING -- Contributing (C/10) STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE/HISTORIC CONTEXT This Colonial Revival house was built by Whitcomb & Keller in 1924. The first residents were Leo Oppernam, an music teacher and musician at the Palace Theater and his wife, Antonette who was a saleslady for Economy Depts. They purchased the house in 1928. PROPOSED CHANGE The owner proposes to replace the existing chain-link fence at the rear yard of the property with a four foot high picket fence with Gothic picket caps. STANDARDS The Preservation Guidelines and Standards for EdgeWater Place state: I.B.1. Required Existing plants, trees, fencing, walkways, streetlights, signs, and benches which reflect the property's history and development shall be retained I.B.2 Recommended New site work should be based upon actual knowledge of the past appearance of the property found in photographs, drawings and newspapers. New site work should also be appropriate to existing surrounding site elements in scale, type, and appearance..... I.B.3 Prohibited No changes may be made to the appearance of the site by removing old plants, trees, fencing, walkways, outbuildings, or other elements before evaluating their importance to the property's history and development. RECOMMENDATION The existing chain,link fence is in a state of deterioration and in need of repair or replacement. The proposed picket fence is consistent with the style of the house and the period of interpretation for the neighborhood. Staff recommends approval of this application. David B. Duvall 4/9/96 C"CN • .A • MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING of the HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Special Monthly Meeting County Commissioner's 7:30 p.m. Conference Room Monday March 18, 1996 7th Floor County -City Building I. Call to Order John Oxian, president of the commission, brought the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. II. Roll Call Commission members present were: Richard Bullene, Martha Choitz, Adrian Fine, Catherine Hostetler, John Oxian, Jerry Wiener, & J. Edward Talley. Commission staff present were: David Duvall, director and Aladean DeRose, counsel. Also attending the meeting were: Christopher Craft, Andy Howell, Garry Dib, Rollin Ferrand, Rick Keller, Ken Herceg, and Bruce VonDeylen III. Public Hearing A. Certificates of Appropriateness 1. 1996-0224, 1215 East Wayne Street North: Mr. Duvall read the Staff comments and distributed photographs and material • specifications. Mr. Talley moved that the commission approve the portion of the application for window replacement. Mrs. Hostetler seconded the motion. Mrs. Choitz observed that there was no representation on the product literature which actually illustrated the proposed mullion pattern. Mr. Duvall replied that this was correct and that the mullion pattern to replicate the existing pattern (6/1) was described on the application itself. Mr. Duvall further noted that he had observed this day that there are existing wood storm windows present which the commission typically requires to be stored if use is discontinued following window replacement. Mr. Talley amended his motion to include storing of the wood storm windows. Mrs. Hostetler approved this amendment. Hearing no further discussion Mr. Oxian called the question. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Oxion asked Mr. Duvall about his recommendation to table the other items. Mr. Duvall stated that he had discussed these items with the owner who had been unable to conclusively describe the landscaping proposals at that time. The owner had subsequently left the city and thus no further information was forthcoming at this time. Mrs. Hostetler moved to table the remaining items on the application. Mrs. Choitz seconded this motion. Mrs. DeRose indicated the motion should include lack of information and absence of the owner's representation as cause. Mrs. Hostetler and Mrs. Choitz approved this amendment. THe motion passed unanimously. 2. 1996-0228, 1332 East Wayne Street South Mr. Duvall Read the Staff comments and distributed photographs and product specifications. He also noted the presence of the applicant. Mr. Oxian suggested separating the various issues as was done previously taking up the • windows first. The applicant requested that he be given latitude regarding the final selection of window manufacturer to enable proper sizing. Mr. Duvall suggested that this would be acceptable so long as the specifications remained the same. Mrs. Choitz moved that the commission approve the windows by Pella or some other manufacturer of the style and dimension presented. Mrs. Hostetler seconded the motion. Hearing no discussion, Mr. Oxian called the • question. The motion was approved unanimously. Mr. Oxian then moved to the shrubbery plantings. Mr. Talley moved that the commission approve the proposed shrubbery. Fr. Bullene seconded the motion. Hearing no discussion, Mr. Oxian called the question. The motion was approved unanimously. Mr. Oxian then moved to the issue of the doors. Mrs Hostetler moved that the commission approve the proposed storm door replacement. Mr. Talley seconded the motion. Mr. Oxian inquired about the size of the glass panel in the proposed door. Mr. Craft indicated the purpose was to better display the entry door. Hearing no more discussion, Mr. Oxian called the question. The motion was approved unanimously. Mrs. Choitz asked for further clarification of the character of the proposed entry door. Mr. Duvall indicated that it was to be a standard colonial six -panel steel door and briefly discussed why this was at variance to the guidelines. Mr. Craft indicated that there was to be no glazing except for a peep -hole. He also indicated that he felt it was appropriate to the neighborhood character and expressed concern for security and weatherization. Fr. Bullene inquired about the non-contributing rating of the building. Mrs. DeRose indicated that this would not affect the application of the standards. Fr. Bullene discussed some elements of the design which he felt made the proposed door compatible with the building. Mrs. Choitz observed that the house was but nine years away from eligibility for a contributing rating and stated that she would at least want the door stored on site as the day might come that someone would seek to restore it. Mr. Craft indicated that there would be no problem in so storing the door. Mr. Oxian asked what other door • styles were found on the street. Fr. Bullene stated that this was the kind of consideration which he was pursuing earlier. Mr. Duvall stated that he had not undertaken the study of the door characteristics of the streetscape but that there are a surprising number of non-contributing houses of this type in the neighborhood which combine traditional massing with contemporary detail. Ile further noted that certain affectations of colonial revival were already present in the building under consideration such as the fixed shutters at the casement windows on the second story. Mrs. DeRose pointed out that there was not certain knowledge of the originality of the present door and that restoration of a prior condition might serve to support replacement. Mr. Duvall indicated that this door was probably original to the house. Mr. Craft indicated that by his observation, the present door was atypical of the more contemporary houses on the street. Mr. Borkowski allowed that the owners concern was not primarily with the number of panels but with the effectiveness of the door for security and thermal efficiency. Mrs. Choitz moved that the commission approve replacement of the existing door with steel six panel type with the stipulation that the existing door be stored on the premises. Mr. Talley seconded the motion. Hearing no more discussion, Mr. Oxian called the question. The motion was approved unanimously. 3) 1996-0301, 105 South Main Street (Third County Courthouse) Mr. Duvall read the Staff comments and distributed drawings and specifications. Following Mr. Duvall's comments, Mr. Oxian reported for the Landmarks committee that they had met with the project engineer the previous week and were prepared to recommend for approval of the project provided that elements of the original materials be salvaged and made available for display and interpretation. Mr. Borkowski moved for the Landmarks committee that the 40 proposal be so approved. Rick Keller, representing Ken Herceg & Associates made a presentation including photographs of existing conditions, portions of representative materials, and information regarding the proposed replacement materials. The project includes replacement of the dome sheathing, restoration of the • clearstory, reconstruction of the cresting, replacement of the flagpole, resetting of the stone entry steps and repointing and non-abrasive cleaning of the masonry. Fr. Bullene cautioned that lighting the dome from below would be difficult and require special attention. Mr. Talley complimented the engineers on the thoroughness and sensitivity of their design work. Fr. Bullene expressed his concern that the aging be uniform for both the masonry and the dome. Mr. Keller observed that the mould process would replicate the aged texture of the existing dome. He further noted that the copper elements would have an aging agent applied as well. Mr. Oxian indicated that he have preferred to see it shine for a while. Hearing no more discussion, Mr. Oxian called the question indicating that all features of the project which had been discussed would be included in the one motion. The motion was approved unanimously. 1996-0306, 1414 East Wayne Street Mr. Duvall read the Staff comments reminding the commission of the previous hearing regarding this site. Fr. Bullene moved that the commission approve the application. Mrs. Hostetler seconded the motion. Hearing no more discussion, Mr. Oxian called the question. The motion was approved unanimously. 1996-0307, 1724 East Wayne Street Mr. Duvall read the Staff comments and distributed photographs and material specifications. He noted that the applicant and his contractor were present. Mr. Talley moved that the commission approve the application. Mr. Borkowski • seconded the motion. Mr. Dik, the contractor, indicated that the windows should be indistinguishable at a distance. Mr. Duvall observed that the proposed windows are the type where muntin inserts are placed between the panes of glass. Mr. Talley moved for approval of the application. Mr. Borkowski seconded the motion. Hearing no more discussion, Mr. Oxian called the question. The motion was approved unanimously. B. Second Reading of Recommendation for Local Landmark Designation 1. 130 Park Lane Mr. Duvall indicated that he had received telephone correspondence this day from Denise Scott of Memorial Properties indicating that notification had reached their office only on this day and that they had been unaware of the first reading. Mr. Duvall allowed that they may not have received notice due to the difficulties in scheduling the February meeting after his accident. Mr. Talley allowed that he had not sent this notice after conferring with Mr. Oxian wherein they had together determined that notice was not required. Mrs. DeRose indicated that this determination was technically correct but that the issue could remain problematic if Memorial Properties chose to use the issue for legal entanglement by to Common Counsel. She recommended that in the absence of emergency, the issue be tabled and notice given. Mr. Talley indicated that he felt the structure to be threatened with demolition at this time. Mrs. Choitz and Mrs. Hostetler concurred in this opinion. Mr. Oxian recommended that the proposal be tabled. Mr. Talley indicated his discomfort with the past history of Memorial's property activities leading him to find an emergency. Mr. Talley moved for approval of the recommendation to establish • the Local Landmark. Mrs. Choitz seconded the motion. Mr. Duvall then read the Staff comments. Mr. Talley asked if it were necessary or possible to stay demolition in the interim period. Mr. Oxian indicated that the commission did not have such powers. Fr. Bullene sought clarification that we were sending forward a potentially weak nomination on the basis of a perceived threat. Mr. Oxian indicated that he felt- the offering of the house • for a move to be a breach of faith regarding previous commitments on the part of Memorial to retain the house in-situ as a buffer between parking areas and Leeper Park. Mr. Fine inquired when the building had first been made available for removal from the site. Mrs. Choitz recalled that when several other buildings were being removed from this vicinity many individuals had expressed interest in this building but that it had not been so available at that time. The building has now been vacant for about three years. Hearing no more discussion, Mr. Oxian called the question. The motion was approved unanimously. IV. Regular Business A. Approval of Minutes 1. January 15, 1996 Mrs.Choitz moved that the January minutes be approved. Mr. Talley seconded the motion. The minutes were unanimously approved. 2. February 26, 1996 Mrs.Choitz moved that the February minutes be approved as printed. Mr. Talley seconded the motion. The minutes were unanimously approved. B. Treasurers Report The Treasurer made no report. C. Correspondence Mr. Duvall indicated that items of interest had been received as follows: • 1) Notification of HLFI Photo contest for Historic Preservation Week. 2) Notification of Maude Preston Pulanski Library in St. Joseph as a source of information on grant funding. 3) Letter form DHPA regarding 1996-97 Grant funding. 4) Letter of thanks from Jane Tenny in appreciation of assistance in the open house for her properties at Washington & Chapin. D. Committee Reports 1. Budget & Finance Mr. Wiener indicated that there was no report for this month. 3. Legal Mrs. DeRose indicated that some alternative form of certification might be made as the ordinance refers to a COA as an approval made before an action is made, implying that if an action is made before approval, a different form of certification might be provided after the fact. She cautioned however that if the different form is undertaken, it may create confusion and even encourage a sense that there is this second way. It may also confuse other city departments. She recommended that a better path would be to establish some penalty for after the fact applications. This would require amendment of the ordinance. The fee structure is an alternative means of penalty to fines. Records may be kept by color coding or labeling COA with Prejudice. Mrs. Choitz inquired if ATF Certificate of Approval could be used. Mrs. DeRose reiterated that this would send the message of a second path for approval. Mr. Oxian indicated that the color code should be instituted. The color code would provide indication of the problem. Fr. Bullene recalled a saying that its • easier to get forgiveness than permission, indicating that it is counterproductive to publicize approvals after the fact. Mr. Wiener asked what the Building Department did in these situations other that the triple fee penalty. Mrs. DeRose responded that this was all that was done. Mr. Oxian observed that the three dollar fee was established by the commission as an affordable figure which the commission could raise. Mr. Duvall indicated that • this presented a problem in our fee structure as it is so low that tripling presented no real penalty. Mr. Talley suggested that a proposal needs to be developed this year for increasing fees and establishing penalties. Mr. Oxian suggested that this be undertaken by the May meeting. Mrs Choitz observed that collection could become difficult and Mrs. DeRose indicated that if the penalty is not severe people will choose to risk it for convenience. Mr. Duvall observed that after the fact applications were already recorded internally in our record system. Mr. Oxian moved that different color coding be established for late applications. Mrs. Hostetler seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Fr. Bullene suggested that the data -base also track offending contractors as well as owners. Mr. Oxian asked whether the letters had been sent regarding the trees removed on Lincolnway. Mrs. DeRose indicated that she had forgotten about this and needed to have the owners names and addresses provided. Mr. Oxian also indicated that he had discussed with Jon Hunt that the commission should reestablish its capability to receive properties. Mrs. DeROse discussed the practicality of such considering the liabilities and cost associated with ownership. Mr. Oxian stated that the capability could be used in a pass-through basis. Mrs. DeRose indicated that there could be a problem with the thwarting owners' intentions. Mrs. Choitz indicated that it would need to be understood that such gifts would be of a pass-through nature. Mr. Oxian indicated that two such opportunities have been missed which would have been of benefit to the city. Mr. Oxian instructed Mrs. DeRose to draft some model • document for him to circulate within departments for discussion. Mrs DeRose also raised the issue that the HPC is not a not-for-profit entity and cannot bestow tax deductibility to such gifts. A separate sub -organization would need to be created and the enabling ordinance would need amendment to allow this sort of activity. After some discussion it was determined that Mr. Oxian will develop an outline of what will be required to allow the commission to receive bequests of property. 4. Historic Districts Mr. Oxian indicated that he wished to discuss liaison committee concerns later in the meeting. 5. Historic Landmarks A) Mr. Oxian requested the opinions of commission members regarding the proposal for designation of 534 LaPorte which remains tabled by the Common Council but has not been withdrawn. Mrs. Choitz inquired about the probability of anyone ever rehabilitating the structure in the light of its brown -site status. Mr. Oxian indicated that the owner is the County and that county officials have made no negative indication. He indicated that this was the best example of an early era gas station that he knew of. Discussion ensued regarding the status of the proposal at council and the implications of minimum maintenance standards for the county. Fr. Bullene inquired as to whether the building could be removed to satisfy code enforcement concerns without triggering environmental clean-up. Mrs. DeRose indicated that the clean-up would only be required in the case of transfer of ownership. FR. Bullene indicated that its seems that the building has some protection from • development due to the environmental situation, inferring that the architectural importance of the site would need to be very high to justify the costs related to its preservation. His conclusion was that the burden would be inordinate. Mrs. DeRose discussed the consideration of site in the importance of this building. Mr. Borkowski moved to withdraw the nomination. Mr. Wiener seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously. • B. 3418 Mishawaka Avenue Mr Oxian reported that a letter had been sent to the Common Council requesting that consideration of this nomination be resumed. B) Leeper Park Proposal Mr. Oxian reported that the legal description included in the ordinance establishing the North Pump Station as a Local Landmark has bee found to be in error., Mr. Talley described the nature of the discrepancy. Mr. Duvall stated that this boundary which arose from title transfer documents is not discernible on the ground as the National Register criteria for site boundaries would indicate. Thus the Landmark boundaries and the National Register boundaries will be at variance. Mr. Talley indicated that the proposed boundaries constituted the original site. Mr. Duvall allowed that this was a rational argument and that it was acceptable but pointed out that there might be questions raised at council as to why so much land was being included. Mrs. Choitz pointed out that this would include the land on which the Navarre Cabin sits. Mr. Talley moved that the establishing ordinance be amended to correct this error per the documents provided. Mrs. Hostetler seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously. c. 30750 Inwood Road Mr. Duvall reported that the commission has received an application and consent form the owners of 30750 Inwood Road to establish this site as a Local Landmark. This building which is presently a residence, is the former Olive Township School #12 which was constructed circa 1925 according to the • information provided by the applicant. It did not appear in the County summary report as it would have barely passed the 50 year point at the time of the County survey work performed in 1975. Likewise it was not established as a Local Landmark along with the other early rural township schools. Mr. Duvall stated that he had not yet surveyed the building but that all the information provided seemed to be correct. Mr. Oxian verified that he had found reference to this school and observed that with consent, the first and second reading with notifications could be dispensed with and requested a motion to this effect. Mrs. Choitz moved that we accept 30750 Inwood Road for Local Landmark Status. Mr. Fine seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously. 6. Standards & Maintenance A. 221 West North Sore Drive Mr. Duvall reported that the additional information requested following the previous meeting had not yet bee received and thus no committee meeting had been held for its review. Mr. Talley noted that he had observed the construction work proceeding at the site. 6. Personnel Mr. Duvall reported that he had commenced interviewing applicants for the part-time Administrative Assistant's position who have responded to the advertisement in the Southhold Newsletter. He noted that he had some concern regarding the status of Mr. Oxian's discussions with city and county officials regarding the possible assumption of their employer role and whether this might affect the part-time/full-time character of the job description. His concern was that the possibility of full-time employment might affect the • candidate selection. Mr. Oxian stated that he felt we should proceed on a part-time assumption. Iie stated that Jon Hunt had agreed that it would be advantageous to remove this position from CDBG funding and establish the position with the city. Ivy jam{ Mr. Duvall also noted that there has been an 4+4B -intern in the office for the past two Mondays and that she has bee working on the research for the St • Casimir District National Register nomination. E. Staff Reports 1. C of A Staff Approvals Mr. Duvall reported that there had been no Staff approvals during this period. 2. DHPA Grant status a.National Register nominations: Mr. Duvall reported that work was proceeding in completing the nominations in progress but that no additional nominations had been completed. b. Economic Benefits Study The Appraisal Group has completed approximately 80% of their work. The Draft Report has still not been received but is anticipated in the coming month. Mr. Duvall indicated that the consultants were presently out of the city and could not be reached. c. Mr. Talley indicated that his research on Leeper Park was nearly complete and that he would like to proceed with assembling it for a National Register Nomination. Mr. Fine indicated that Mr. Talley should go ahead and write the nomination. Mr. Talley indicated that he had never written a nomination and felt that he would require technical assistance. Mr. Fine volunteered to assist Mr. Talley in working on the nomination. V. Old Business • Mr. Oxian expressed concern that Districts, Landmarks, and Standards & Maintenance committees should meet within the next two months toward the goal of establishing a three-year plan for the commission. He has discussed with Jon Hunt of Economic Development a concern for coordinating our activities. Long range goals also need to be established for changes in the enabling ordinance which would be desirable. He also raised the concern from the last meeting on reviving the activities of Liaison Committees. He noted that in the absence of elected liaison representatives, the commission may appoint them. Mr. Oxian requested that Mr. Duvall mail copies of the updated committee appointments to all members. Mr. Duvall recalled one item of Staff Report which he had neglected to make regarding progress on the Manuel Cabin Study Committee. A meeting has been established with for a subcommittee of this group to meet with officials at Potato Creek State Park to discuss the possibilities for interpretation of that community at the park in association with the Poter-Rea Cemetery. Mr. Oxian mentioned a compliment from Mr. Ganzer, The Portage Twp. Trustee regarding the commissions work in designating pioneer cemeteries. Mr. Wiener observed that he had heard of Ms. Shriner, the owner of 415 Parry Street seeking proposals for someone to undertake a house -move of that structure which was discussed last month. VI. New Business VII. Hearing of Visitors none • VIII. Announcements & Miscellaneous Matters none IX. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m. �)"O 4/I/-Tce • 9.0 LANDSCAPES - STANDARDS AND CRITERIA FOR LEEPER PARK 9.1 Introduction 1. In these guidelines the verb Should indicates a recommended course of action; the verb Shall indicates those actions which are specifically required to preserve and protect significant architectural elements. 2. The intent of these standards and criteria is to preserve the overall character and appearance of Leeper Park including its spatial organization, topography, vegetation. circulation and features. 3. The standards and criteria acknowledge that there will be changes to the landscape and are intended to make the changes sensitive to the historic character of the landscape. 4. Each property will be separately studied to determine if a later addition(s) and/or alteration(s) can, or should, be removed. 5. Since it is not possible to provide one general guideline, the following factors that will be considered in 'determining • whether a later addition(s) and/or alteration(s) can, or should, be removed include: • a. Compatibility with the original property's integrity in scale, materials and character. b. Historic association with the property. c. Quality in design and execution of the addition/alteration. d. Functional usefulness. 6. Recreational facilities which exist should be allowed to remain as long as they serve substantial community functions. In some cases these features can be redesigned to be more compatible with the overall landscape. 7. Additions to existing recreational facilities shall not be allowed unless such additions make the facilities more compatible with the overall landscape. 8. The development of additional facilities for active recreation or single purpose uses for limited user groups shall not be allowed. 1 9. Proposals for special activities and events which cause significant impacts or require permanent or even semi- permanent (seasonal) structures or facilities shall not be permitted. 10. The Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph County recommends that the work proposed to the landscape be executed with the guidance of landscape professional with expertise with historic landscapes. 11. The land, streets, island(s), street lighting, park lighting, topography, vistas, vegetation, circulation, architectural elements, structures, spatial organization, street furniture, sewer covers, electrical and water vault and/or manhole covers, parking areas are subject to the terms of the landscape guidelines herein stated. 12. Items under Historic Preservation review include but are not limited to the following: 9.2 Spatial Organization (includes Views, Vistas, Landscape Spaces, etc.) Refer to Sections 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, 9.6, 9.7 and 9.8 for additional Standards and Criteria that may apply. . '. 0. 1. Views and vistas are among the most important aspects of a landscape, therefore, they should be maintained and preserved. 2. All views, vistas, landscape spaces located in the eastern section and central section of Leeper Park shall be preserved. All views, vistas, landscape spaces located north and east and west of a line designated as the northern fence of the tennis courts located in the western section of Leeper Park shall also be preserved. This shall include the island(s) located in the St. Joseph River and the slough which lies between the island(s) and the mainland. All views, vistas and landscape spaces shall also include the entirety of the riverbank as well as the area lying between the roadway of Riverside Drive up to and including the riverbank and cut stone wall along the riverbank. 3. Original or later contributing spatial organizational features shall be retained in their existing configuration and shall be retained in their existing configuration and shall be maintained through proper drainage, access and erosion • control, pruning and removal of invasive vegetation or otherwise using recognized horticultural and soil management practices. 4. Alteration of existing or addition of new spatial organizational features will be considered if they do not alter the basic concept of the historic landscape design. 5. Deteriorated or missing spatial organizational features shall be replaced with features that match the original in form, shape, color and texture. 6. When replacement of features is necessary, it should be based on physical or documentary evidence. 7. If using the same material is not technically or economically feasible, then compatible substitute materials may be considered. 8. Important visual connections between spaces within the landscape shall be retained by maintaining vegetation, circulation and topography features which contribute to these visual relationships. • 9. The historic spatial and functional relationship of circulation systems, water features and structures shall be preserved by maintaining the massing of adjacent vegetation, vistas, or other associated features. 10. Maintenance of, removal of, and additions of vegetation materials and features should consider maintaining existing or intended vistas and spaces, screening intrusions, creating new spaces where appropriate and maintaining defined areas of shade and sun. 11. The form and shape of individual spaces and their associated vertical elements shall be retained in order to preserve the historic relationships of the landscape. Examples include the relationship between open fields and hedgerows or the width and length of an alley. 12. Moving or demolishing historic structures that would alter spatial and visual relationships in the landscape shall not be allowed. 0 3 13. Construction of new structures that would alter historic spatial and visual relationships in the landscape shall not be allowed. 14. Intrusive views or new construction may be screened with compatible fencing or plant material so long as the screening would not detract from the, historic character of the landscape. 9.3 lbpography (includes the Shape, Slope, Elevation, Contour of landforms and Ground Plane, etc.) Refer to Sections 9.2, 9.4, 9.5, 9.8 9.9 and 9.10 for additional Standard and Criteria that may apply. 1. All locations and items listed in 9.2.2 shall also apply to this section and shall be preserved. 2. Original or later contributing topographical features shall be retained in their existing configuration and shall be maintained through proper drainage, access and erosion control, and recognized soil management practices. 3. Alte'rati'on of existing or addition of new topographical • features will be considered if they do not alter the basic concept of the historic landscape design. 4. Natural features (e.g. rock outcroppings) which are integrated into the landscape shall be treated as part of the overall design and shall be retained. 5. Deteriorated or missing topographical features shall be replaced with materials that match the original in form, shape, color and texture. 6. When replacement of materials or features is necessary, it should be based on physical or documentary evidence. 7. If using the same material is not technically or economically feasible, then compatible substitute materials may may be considered. 8. Wherever appropriate, plant materials rather than structural materials should be used to solve erosion problems. Repair of the WPA island and slough stone construction projects is strongly encouraged. 0 4 9.4 Vegetation • (includes Trees, Shrubs, Ground Covers, Hedges, Alleys, Fields, Forests, Planting Beds, etc.) Refer to Sections 9.2, 9.3, 9.5, 9.7, 9.8, 9.9 and 9.10 for additional Standards and Criteria that may apply. 1. Refer to Section 9.2.2 for items within this section which shall be preserved. Also included in this section shall be the diverse variety of trees, shrubs bushes and other vegetation which may or may not be indigenous to this region. Lists of such types of vegetation can found in lists and inventories which were published in the annual reports of both the City of South Bend and the South Bend Park Commission from the years 1910 to 1940. 2. Original or later contributing vegetation materials and features shall be retained in their existing configuration and shall be maintained through proper horticultural management practices. 3. Alteration of existing or addition of new vegetation materials and features will be considered if they do not alter the basic concept of the historic landscape design. • 4. Deteriorated or missing vegetation materials and features shall be replaced with materials, that match the original in size, shape, color, form and texture. 5. When replacement of vegetation materials and features is necessary, it should be based on physical or documentary evidence. 6. If using the same vegetation material is not technically or economically feasible, then compatible substitute vegetation materials may be considered if they convey the same growth habit, form, foliage and bloom characteristics as the historic plant. 7. Existing healthy vegetation material shall be retained unless it is part of a later non -compatible design or is volunteer vegetation inconsistent with the original design. 8. Consideration for removal of existing healthy vegetation materials and features will be given when it is in conflict with the original design intent of the landscape, such as when an 0 5 • important vista has become overgrown or when plants have grown out of scale with their intended purpose. 9. Maintenance of, removal of, and additions of vegetation materials and features should consider maintaining existing or intended vistas and spaces, screening intrusions , creating new spaces where appropriate and maintaining defined areas of shade and sun. 10. Invasive vegetation shall be removed whenever technically feasible and shall be replaced with appropriate vegetation consistent with the original design of the park and with current factors such as security, ecological conditions and wildlife management practices. 11. Hazardous plants or portions of plants should be removed promptly. 12. Plants with diseases that are difficult or not practical to control or cure should be removed promptly to prevent their infection of other plants. 13. Mutilated or distorted plants should be removed. Ir 014. Plant replacements should be added on a schedule that will insure a continuity in the landscape design. 15. Existing vegetation shall be protected adjacent construction activities by fencing the root system prior to the start of construction. 16. Future plantings of the main floral garden in the central section of the park shall be guided by the design of the main floral garden as laid out by George Kessler in 1912. 9.5 Circulation (includes Roads, Paths, Parkways, Drives, Trails, Walks, etc.) Refer to Sections 9.2, 9.4, 9.6, 9.8, 9.9 and 9.10 for additional Standards and Criteria that may apply. 1. The following shall be preserved: Riverside Drive, Lafayette Boulevard, Park Lane (Foote Street), Bartlett Street, the Alleyway east of Michigan Street running north from Bartlett Street, all sidewalks, curbs, pathways around the duck pond(west lagoon), stairways, pathways in and around the 0 6 • Sunken Garden, and the footbridge from the mainland to the island. Alteration or addition of Roads, Paths, Parkways, Trails, Walks, etc. shall be based upon physical or historical documentation of these items as they existed from 1910 to 1940. 2. Original or later contributing layouts of walks, roads and paved areas shall be retained and maintained. 3. Alteration of existing or addition of new circulation layouts will be considered if it can be shown that better site circulation is necessary and that the alteration does not alter the basic concept of the historic landscape design. 4. When replacement of circulation layouts is necessary, it should be based on physical or documentary evidence. 5. Original or later contributing circulation materials and features shall be retained and, if necessary, repaired by patching, piecing -in or reinforcing the material or feature using recognized preservation methods. 6. Deteriorated or missing circulation materials and features shall be replaced with materials that match the original in size, shape, color, profile, form, texture and detail of installation. 7. If using same material is not technically or economically feasible, then compatible substitute materials may be considered. 8. Alteration of existing or addition of new circulation materials and features will be considered if they do not alter the basic concept of the historic landscape design. 9. Consideration will be given to an alternate paving material if it can be shown that its properties will improve the original or later contributing design concept. 10. When replacement of circulation materials or features is necessary, it should be based on physical or documentary evidence. 11. Consideration for removal of existing circulation systems and features will be given when it is conflict with the original design intent of the landscape or when they are no longer appropriate to their intended purpose. 0 7 • 12. No vehicles unless of or approved by the South Bend Park Department shall be permitted on any part of the park surface at any time. Vehicles of American Electric Power, and/or other vehicles of the City of South Bend, shall use predetermined routes to and from their destination. When said travel would cause them to cross any area of the park which is not paved and designed for vehicular traffic, any damage caused by any vehicle, shall be repaired immediately to look as it did prior to said damage. 13. Encroachment of vehicles off the paved roadway of any area of the park shall not be permitted. Areas now used for vehicular parking which are not part of the historical design concept of that park shall be removed. 14. Construction of any type within the park shall be done so as not to disturb any feature of the park. Sheets of plywood or other approved material may need to be laid upon the surface of the park prior to construction equipment. Repairs which must match the original historic design concept shall be made in any and all circumstances of damage. 9.6 Water Features • (includes Fountains, Pools, Irrigation Systems, Ponds, Rivers, etc.) Refer to Sections 9.11 B, C and D regarding treatment of materials and features; and Sections 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, 9.7, 9.8 and 9.10 for additional Standards and Criteria that may apply. 1. Features which shall be preserved include: the duck pond (West Lagoon), the water pond in the Sunken Garden, the slough between the island and the mainland, all drinking fountains, pump houses, manhole covers, drainage grates, horse and dog fountain and the path of the St. Joseph River in relation to the park. 2. Original or later contributing water features shall be retained and maintained. 3. Existing water courses or bodies should not be altered. Consideration will be given to proposals that improve site drainage, improve water quality, enhance the landscape design or improve wildlife habitat. 4. Alteration of existing or addition of new water features will be 0 8 • considered if the alteration does not alter the basic concept of the historic landscape design. 5. When placement of water features and their materials are necessary, it should be based on physical or documentary evidence. 6. Original or later contributing water feature materials shall be retained and, if necessary, repaired by patching, piecing in, consolidating or reinforcing the material using recognized preservation methods. 7. Deteriorated or missing water feature materials shall be replaced with materials that match the original in size, shape, color, profile, form, texture and detail of installation. 8. If using the same material is not technically or economically feasible, then compatible substitute materials may be considered. 9. Alteration of existing or addition of new water feature materials will be considered if they do not alter the basic concept of the historic landscape design. • 10. When appropriate from an ecological perspective, dredging of waterways shall be permitted as a means of retaining historic waterways. 11. All wetlands shall be preserved. 12. All shorelines of water courses or bodies shall be protected from erosion in a manner in keeping with the basic concept of the landscape design. 13. Consideration for removal of existing water features will be given when it is in conflict with the original design intent of the landscape or when they are no longer appropriate to their intended purpose. 14. Some areas of Leeper Park are utilized for the pumping of water for the City of South Bend, and there exists both within the park and the St. Joseph River and on the island(s) wells, well -houses and other water supply entities. Repairs that may be necessary to existing services, or additions to existing services, or the sinking of additional or new wells; all such work, installations and/or repairs shall return the disturbed area(s) of the park, island(s) and the St. Joseph River to • 9 • conditions of the park as in that time period of 1912 to 1940. Any new installations of any type may be considered if the alteration does not alter the basic concept of the historic landscape design. 9.7 Furnishings and Objects (includes Benches, Lights, Signs, Drinking Fountains, Trash Receptacles, Fences, Tree Grates, Flagpoles, Sculpture, Monuments, Memorials, Planters, Urns, etc.) Refer to Sections 9.0 B, C and D regarding treatment of materials and features; and Sections 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, 9.6, 9.8, 9.9 and 9.10 for additional Standards and Criteria that may apply. 1. All items listed herein shall be preserved: a. The Duck Pond(West Lagoon), including the Island in the 0 10 lagoon, the Walls, Curbing, Fence and Shelter House. b. The Stone and Plaque of the DAR, with related Tulip and Ginkgo Trees. c. The Concrete Stairway leading west southwesterly from the Duck Pond(West Lagoon). d. The High Embankment on the west-southwest side` of the Duck Pond (West Lagoon). e. The Pump Houses, number 2 and 3. f. The Edward B. Reynolds Horse and Dog Watering Fountain. g. The Drinking Fountain in the south east portion of the central section of the park. h. The central section of the park, the area of the large Floral Garden and Pathways as designed by George E. Kessler in 1912. i. All Sidewalks on Lafayette Boulevard, Riverside Drive, Park Lane(Foote Street), Bartlett Street and Michigan Street. j. The Retaining Wall on the western boundary of the western section of the park. k. The Wall comprised of Cut Stone, which extends west- northwest and east-southeast from the southern approach of the Leeper Bridge(Michigan Street Bridge. 1. The Log Cabin known as the Navarre House, and the footings of the cabin/house which was burned down. m. All Drinking Fountains located in the eastern section of the park and/or on the island(s). 0 10 • n. The Sunken Garden in the eastern section of the park, along with all Vegetation, Pathways, Stairs and the Fountain and Statues. o. The WPA walls and Slough(s) in the eastern section of the park and the adjoining St. Joseph River. p. All Park Benches. q. All Manhole Covers, Sewer Covers and Grates, and all Electrical Underground Vault and/or Raceway Covers. r. The north/south alleyway east of Michigan Street, running north from Bartlett Street which used to run between Lot 'A' and Lots 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and part of 20 of the Rockstroh Addition. s. All Plaques, Monuments, Sculptures Memorials, Planters, Urns, Curbings, Roadways, Marker Stones, Sundials, Well -Head Covers, Fences, Trellises, Pergolas, Pathways, and Trees. 2. Original or later contributing furnishings and objects, materials, elements, features and details shall be retained and, if necessary, repaired by patching, splicing, consolidating or otherwise reinforcing using recognized preservation methods. 3. Deteriorated or missing furnishings anti objects, materials, • elements, features and details shall be replaced with materials that match the original in material, size, shape, color, profile, form, texture, configuration and detail of installation. 4. Alteration of existing of addition of new furnishings and objects will be considered if the alteration does not alter the basic concept of the historic landscape design. 5. When replacement of furnishings and objects and their materials are necessary, it should be based on physical or documentary evidence. 6. If using the same material is not technically or economically feasible, then compatible substitute materials may be considered. 7. Existing memorials, statues, monuments and fountains shall be carefully preserved and restored where necessary, maintaining the integrity of the original material and design. This work shall be coordinated with the Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph County. • 11 • 8. New furnishings and objects should be designed using vandal resistant standards. 9. Location of signs shall be guided by a master plan. 10. Signs shall conform to a simple sign system. 11. Existing non -conforming signs should be removed. 12. All new monuments and fountains shall be placed so that they conform to and with the original historic landscape design of the park and park system. 9.8 Structures (includes Walls, Terraces, Arbors, Gazebos, Follies, Playground Equipment, Picnic Shelters, Plazas, Greenhouse, Steps, Bridges, Dams, Buildings, etc.) Refer to Sections 9.11 B and D regarding treatment of materials and features; and Sections 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, 9.6, 9.7, 9.9 and 9.10 for additional Standards and Criteria that may apply. 1. The general intent is to' preserve the original or later • contributing structures that enhance the historic landscape. 2. Refer to Sections 9.2.2 and 9.7.1 of structures, elements and materials that need to be preserved, such as Walls, Terraces, Arbors, Gazebos, Follies, Playground Equipment, Picnic Shelters, Plazas, Greenhouses, Steps, Bridges, Dams, Buildings, etc. which shall be preserved. 3. Original or later contributing structures, materials, elements, details and ornamentation shall be retained and, if necessary, repaired using recognized preservation methods. 4. Deteriorated or missing structures, materials, elements, details and ornamentation shall be replaced with material and elements which match the original in material, color, texture, size, shape, profile and detail of installation. 5. When replacement is necessary, it should be based on physical of documentary evidence. 6. If using the same material is not technically or economically feasible, then compatible substitute materials may be considered. 40 12 • 7. New additions/alterations to the landscape (such as: parking lots, comfort stations, buildings, etc.) shall be as unobtrusive as possible and preserve any original or later contributing landscape features. 8. Removal of non -historic structures from the existing landscape is encouraged. 9. Structures shall be protected from arson and other acts of vandalism through proper monitoring procedures and methods such as; permanent installation of smoke detectors, alarms, or other security systems, or temporarily boarding up windows and openings. 10. No building(s) shall be erected in the central section of the park; the western section of the park, north of the northern fence to the tennis courts; the eastern section of the park, west of the rear set -back of the North Pumping Station, or in the area north and east of the Log Cabin. 9.9 Archeology Refer to Sections 9.11 B and C, and D regarding treatment of materials. Refer to Sections 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, 9.6, 9.7 and 9.8 for additional Standards and Criteria that may apply. 1. The landscape should be surveyed for potential archeological sites prior to the beginning of any construction project. 2. Known Archeological site(s) shall be protected during any construction project. 3. Disturbance of the terrain within the landscape shall be kept to a minimum so as not to disturb any unknown archeological materials. 4. All planning, any necessary site investigation, or data recovery shall be conducted by a professional archeologist. • 13 • 9. 10 Accessibility Refer to Sections 9.11 B, C and D regarding treatment of materials. Refer to Sections 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, 9.6, 9.7 and 9.8 for additional Standards and Criteria that may apply. 1. A three-step approach is recommended to identify and implement accessibility modifications that will protect the integrity and historic character of the property: a. Review the historical significance of the property and identify character -defining features; b. Assess the property's existing and required level of accessibility; c. Evaluate accessibility options within a preservation context. 2. Because of the complex nature of accessibility, the Historic Preservation Commission will review proposals on a case by case bases. The Commission recommends consulting with the following document which is available from the Commission office: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park -Service, Cultural Resources, Preservation Assistance • Division; Preservation Brief 32, "Making Historic Properties Accessible" by Thomas C. Jester and Sharon C. Park, AIA. 9.11 Architectural Materials A. General The Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph County recommend that work proposed to the materials outlined in sections B, C and D be executed with the guidance of a professional building material conservator. 1. Removal of the speakers atop Pump House Number 3 is encouraged. & Masonry (Brick, Stone, Terra Cotta, Concrete, Stucco and Mortar) 1. All masonry, brick, stone, terra Cotta, concrete, stucco and mortar structures, devices, buildings shall be retained. 0 14 2. Original or later contributing masonry materials, features, details, surfaces and ornamentation shall be retained and, if necessary, repaired by patching, piecing -in, or consolidating the masonry using recognized preservation methods. 3. Deteriorated or missing masonry materials, features, details, surfaces and ornamentation shall be replaced with material and elements which match the original in material, color, texture, size, shape, profile and detail of installation. 4. When replacement of materials or elements is necessary, it should be based on physical or documentary evidence. 5. If using the same material is not technically or economically feasible, then compatible substitute materials may be considered. 6. Original mortar shall be retained. 7. Deteriorated mortar shall be carefully removed by hand - raking the joints. 8. Use of mechanical saws and hammers shall not be allowed. 9. Repointing mortar shall duplicate the original mortar in strength, composition, color, texture, joint size, joint profile and method of application. 10. Sample panels of raking the joints and repointing shall be reviewed and approved by the staff of the Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph County. 11. Cleaning of masonry is discouraged and should be performed only when necessary to halt deterioration. 12. If the building is to be cleaned, the mildest method possible shall be used. 13. A test patch of the cleaning method(s) shall be reviewed and approved on site by staff of the Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph County. Test patches should always be carried out well in adva 0 15 • nee of cleaning (including exposure to all seasons if possible). 14. Sandblasting (wet or dry), wire brushing, or similar abrasive cleaning methods shall not be permitted. Doing so changes the visual quality of the material and accelerates deterioration. 15. Waterproofing or water repellents are strongly discouraged. These treatments are generally not effective in preserving masonry and can cause permanent damage. The Commission does recognize that in extraordinary circumstances their use may be required to solve a specific problem. Samples of any proposed treatment shall be reviewed by the Commission before application. 16. In general, painting masonry surfaces shall not be allowed. Painting masonry surfaces will be considered only when there is documentary evidence that this treatment was used at some point in the history of the property. C. Wood 1. All wood structures and components shall be preserved and retained. • 2. Original or later contributing wood surfaces, features, details and ornamentation shall be retained and, if necessary, repaired by patching, piecing -in, consolidating or reinforcing the wood using recognized preservation methods. 3. Deteriorated or missing wood surfaces, features, details and ornamentation shall be replaced with material and elements which match the original in material, color, texture, size, shape, profile and detail of installation. 4. When replacement of materials or elements is necessary, it should be based on physical or documentary evidence. 5. If using the same material is not technically or economically feasible, then compatible substitute materials may be considered. 6. Cleaning of wooden elements shall use the mildest method possible. • 16 • 7. Paint removal should be considered only where there is paint surface deterioration and as part of an overall maintenance program which involves repainting or applying other appropriate protective coatings. Coatings such as paint help protect the wood from moisture an ultraviolet light and stripping the wood bare will expose the surface to the effects of weathering. 8. Damaged or deteriorated paint should be removed to the next sound layer using the mildest method possible. 9. Propane or butane torches, sandblasting, water blasting or other abrasive cleaning and.or paint removal methods shall not be permitted. Doing so changes the visual quality of the wood and accelerates deterioration. 10. Repainting should be based on paint seriation studies. If an adequate record does not exist repainting shall be done with colors that are appropriate to the style and period of the building. D. Architectural Metals (Cast Iron, Steel, Pressed Tin, Copper, Aluminum and Zinc) • 1. All metal materials, features, details and ornamentation of the buildings in the park shall be preserved. This also includes all metal parts of all fountains, monuments, memorials, plaques, street lights, drinking fountains, etc. 2. Original or later contributing metal materials, features, details and ornamentation shall be retained and, if necessary, repaired by patching, splicing or reinforcing the metal using recognized preservation methods. 3. Deteriorated or missing metal materials, features, details and ornamentation shall be replaced with material and elements which match the original in material, color, texture, size, shape, profile and detail of installation. 4. When replacement of materials or elements is necessary, it should be based on physical evidence or documentary evidence. 0 17 • 5. If using the same material is not technically or economically feasible then compatible substitute materials may be considered. 6. Cleaning of metal elements either to remove corrosion or deteriorated paint shall use the mildest method possible. 7. Abrasive cleaning methods, such as low pressure dry grit blasting, may be allowed as long as it does not abrade or damage the surface. 8. A test patch of the cleaning method(s) shall be reviewed and approved on site by staff of the Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph County. Test patches should always be carried out well in advance of cleaning (including exposure to all seasons if possible). 9. Cleaning to remove corrosion and paint removal should be considered only where there is deterioration and as part of an overall maintenance program which involves repainting or applying other appropriate protective coatings. Paint or other coatings help retard the corrosion rate of the metal. Leaving the metal bare will expose the surface to accelerated corrosion. • 10. Repainting should be based on paint seriation studies. If an adequate record does not exist repainting shall be done with colors that are appropriate to the style and period of the building. The Landscapes - Specific Standard and Criteria was financed in part with funds from the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, through the Massachusetts Historical Commission, Secretary of State Michael Joseph Connolly, Chairman, and adopted for use by the Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph County, Indiana, by permission of the Environment Department, City of Boston, Massachusetts, by Michael A. Cannizzo, Staff Architect, 1996. • 18 is Memorandum April 12, 1996 To: Commission members From: Standards & Maintenance Committee Re: 221 West North Shore Drive The Standards & Maintenance Committee met on April 11 to discuss the COA application for 221 West North Shore Drive. Members of the Committee present included: Richard Bullene, Adrian Scott Fine, Catherine Hostetler, and Janeanne Petrass. Members discussed the provisions of the COA which include a 2' x 2' skylight, located at the rear, and the replacement of the east side door. The proposal to construct a wood deck in the rear has been withdrawn from this COA application. All members agreed that the skylight would meet the standards and would not be visible since it is to be located in the rear. The east side entrance door has already been replaced with a steel door featuring a lunette window at the top and four vertical panels below (see photo). The house's Mission style architecture, featuring Prarie and Craftsmen elements, is • unique to South Bend and the North Shore Drive Historic District. The chosen replacement door is not "in -keeping" with this architectural style and is an acharacteristic feature. Committee members suggests that either the door be removed and replaced with a more suitable door type or an appropriately, styled screen door be added. Historically a screen door would have be located. at this lype of entrance primarily to provide for ventilation and increased energy efficiency. The installation of a screen door would effectively conceal the existing door and maintain the integrity of the architecture. Examples of appropriate screen door designs are provided. 0 asf/04/12/96 10:01 AM �� `� s � r �1 jIl u �� x F •• r: x� k j: ; � r? t^ 2.{7 Y.r� ✓j � &r �,; ' k f �'A� �,,,++ityy �� .k�� ,4..';4::x. 1� S i i S. i,��.j q?P.r^w '.., .,�,.. F �.� I xy � ...: Y t N v +„�,� , 'k`i� y"'"_��l�c �� `' ` 14'. t ` i .. .;i.. f..• a a .b �,�� <� ( t x a' ,, �i I , � t4' n� ' ` .t �. ..�.. � . 4 ;. ,q ��, 0 1- d "in wjgLumjl� M Standards & Maintenance Committee April 15, 1996 To: Members Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend & St. Joseph County From: Standards & Maintenance Committee Re: Proposed projects. • Preservation Standards/Guidelines / PRIORITY 1 Working in conjunction with the Historic Districts Committee, the Committee will update the existing standards for the historic districts (recommended to be updated every 3-5 years). Ideally this would include reformatting them to reduce the number of pages (cheaper to print & distribute). Also, we would make them more user-friendly in design by including graphics and preservation tips. Not to make this process too cumbersome, the existing "language" of the guidelines would not be changed unless specific aspects are identified to be added or omitted. As a prototype for the other districts, East Wayne Street will be the first district to receive new standards. The standards will also assist in resurrecting the Liaison Committees. • • Minimum Maintenance Standards / PRIORITY 2 The Committee will gather provisions and examples from other communities and states to begin to determine what would be most effective for South Bend & St. Joseph County. An aspect to these provision would clearly define "minimum maintenance." • Relationship with Code Enforcement / ONGOING The Committee will maintain regular contact with Kathleen Dempsey at Code Enforcement to offer our assistance and insure that building codes and preservation standards are enforced for local landmarks and properties within designated historic districts. • Problematic COAs / ONGOING As needed, Committee members will continue to meet to discuss problematic COA applications and work closer with property owners to develop solutions and compromises. 0 asf/o4/1219611:16AM IF • 0 • 6�7 6 �Pc. ,4P.,1 k} PC 'q4 10 � 0 \ \ - ` \ \ � ` 8 �� 49M