Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecember 1996• • 0 AGENDA OF THE REGULAR MEETING of the HISTORIC PRESERVATION C=:IISSION Regular monthly meeting 7:30 p.m. Monday; December 16, 1996 County Commissioner's Conference Room 7th Floor County City Bldg I Call to Order II. Roll Call. III. Public Hearing A. Certificates of Appropriateness 1. 66251 Cedar Rd. - Demolition of Summer Kitchen outbuilding IV. Regular Business A. Approval of Minutes 1. November 13; 1996 B. Treasurer's Report C. Correspondence D. Committee Reports 1. Budget & Finance 2. Legal 3. Historic Districts a. Project Access b. Madison Hospital 't. Historic Landmarks a. Status of recommendations to Common Council 1) .501 West Colfax 2) Leeper. Park LL proposal 3) Brick Streets +) 513 Harrison Avanue 5) 1631 Lincolnway West 5. Standards & Maintenance a. Leeper Island Wall standards E. Staff Reports 1. C of A Staff approvals a. 9313 Riverside Drive - removal of fallen tree b. 971 Riverside Drive - in-kind replacement of 2. DHPA Grant status a.1996-97 1) Selection of Consultants 3. East Bank Heritage Tourism Grant '�. Personnel b. renewal of Administrative Assistant agreement 5. 1996 calender. V. Old Business VI. New Business A. First Reading Local Landmark designation 1) 701 S. Chapin - Oliver Powerhouse 2) 52939 U.S. 33 North - Blal:e Gardens 3) v0 t V4 1 Lafayette - "..�dison School B. AppoiiiLment of ".;ominatin6 Cc,rmaiLtee C. Preservation iTeek 1997 VII. Bearing of Visitors VIII. Announcements & Miscellaneous Matters IX. Adjournment_ stair railing CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT APPLICATION -- 1996-1203 PROPERTY --66251 Cedar Road Wakarusa, IN (Madison Township, St. Joseph County) OWNER -- Arlene Stump et al (Lloyd Geyer heirs) DESI07ATION -- Local Landmark RATING -- S111 Note: the survey cards prepared in 1979 on the card type then used for such do not indicate the survey rating. The table found in the Summary Report lists the Bichle log house at this site separately but groups the other house and farm buildings together with a collective rating. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE/HISTORIC CONTEXT (See attached history) This site_was apparently first occupied by George Bickle (Bickel ?) who constructed the log house in 1853..According to a newspaper account of unmown origin found in our files, Mrs. Ida Geyer stated that the log house we she' recalled being afraid of in her youth and later became her home had at some time been moved. We may infer however that this relocation was within the bounds of the farm property, and probably not of a great distance. The early Bickle and later Geyer families resided in the log house until 1395 when the • present4armhouse was constructed. The "summer house" presently under consideration is dated on the survey card as being constructed in 1395. However we have found no evidence confirming' this date which corresponds to the known construction date of the farmhouse which was and is quite ornate though modest in scale. Several of the Geyer children were apparently born in.the lo„ house and there is no indication of any other structure having been transitional between.these residences. However the 2/2 window style would suggest an earlier date for this building. It may be possible that this building was constructed as an office for the sawmill operation which proceeded and enabled the farm operation or.that this buil.ding.was relocated to its present site. It would appear from the organization of data on the survey cards and summary report that the log house is given special emphasis and that the barn is considered an outstanding resource. The significance of the house which has been extensively altered and the summer house which has, been somewhat altered and is more humble in character appears to be of an ensemble nature a: contributing; to .an "nusually compl_ot.e farmyard sot -piece. PROPOSED CHANGE The owners propose to demolish the summer house CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPOP.T is STANDARDSThe landmark standards for group B Landmarks state that: D. Demolition Historic Landmarks shall not be demolished. V711en a Landmark poses a threat to the public safety, and demolition is the only alternative, documentation by- way of photographs, measured drawings, or other descriptive methods should be made of both the exterior and interior of the landmark. The person or agency responsible for the demolition of the landmark shall be responsible for his documentation. The commission has further prescribed the following requirements for demolition by resolution. (see attached Demolition Standards) RECOMMENDATION With regard to the criteria noted above for the justification of demolition, the owners have submitted a continuation sheet to their application (see attachment) describing this building's state of deterioration and their opinion of its level of hazard. They have further submitted an estimate for the rehabilitation of the structure. Staff does note that the scope of wort: described in this estimate includes items not noted in the description of the state of'deterioration (i.e. vinyl siding). As of this date the Staff has not had an opportunity to visit the site to make firsthand observations of the conditions there. This is due to: 1) the date of receipt of the application. • 2) inclement weather during the intervening period. and 3) the remoteness of the location. The applicants' local representative has graciously agreed to waive the statutory requirement for hearing of this case at the December meeting and as of this date we anticipate receiving this waiver. Staff has therefore prepared no rec6mmendation as of this date. DBD 12/11/96 • 66251 Cedar Road • Historical Notes: Settlement in Madison Township did not begin until the 1840's, making it one of the latest settled areas in St. Joseph County. At that time, it was largely marshlands and was covered with heavy timber. Numberous sawmills were set up to clear the land. The first recorded owner of this 160 acre property on Cedar Road was Joseph C. Gier. It was granted to him in 1847 by the United States Government through an Act of Congress "to raise for a limited time, an additional military force and for other purposes." The grant was deposited in the general land office, warrent No. 26,441, and was signed in 1851 by President Millard Filmore. Joseph Gier died, however, in 1852, and ownership of the property went to his widow, Christina, and their only son, George Gier. Christina married George Bickle, of Elkhart County, the following year, and he built this log house the same year, 1853. It is 1 1/2 stories high, built of yellow poplar and oak timbers hewn to 8" x 12" and notched to lock at the corners. Wooden wedges were driven into the cracks and plastered with clay on the outside. Inside, the walls were left rough and whitewashed. In 1864, George Gier died and, in September of that year, his share in the property was sold by the guardian of his estate to George Bickle. In October of 1864, George and Christina Bickle sold the property to James Finney of Elk- hart County for $15,00. He sold it on December 30, 1880 to John W. Albert and Charles F. Geyer for $2,800. John Albert sold his share to Geyer in 1882. Charles F. Geyer was born in LaPorte County on October 15, 1857. His father, Jacob, was born in Stolsbury-on-the-Rhine, Germany. At the age of 18, Jacob sailed to the United States, landing in New York, and made his way to Toledo, Ohio, then to St. Joseph County. His first job here was working on the Lake Shore Railroad. He moved to LaPorte County to begin farming and he married Regina Nusselman, a native of Alsace, France. They had 13 children, includ- ing Charles. The family moved to German Township in St. Joseph County, and then to Marshall County where Jacob Geyer remained until his death in 1904 at the age of 76. When Charles Geyer purchased this farm in 1880, he named it the Park Farm. Only twenty-three years old, he soon became a prominent farmer and sawmill operator in Madison Township. He lived in the log house, and in 1886, he married Ida Strope, daughter of A. J. and Catherine Strope, early settlers in the community. Charles and Ida lived in the log house until 1895, when they built the present two-story, vernacular style farm house. Charles Geyer was an extensive traveler, having visited the World's Fairs in Chicago, Buffalo, New York, and St. Louis. His refined taste in architecture gained through this travel was reflected in the buildings he constructed on the Park Farm. The house had finely carved decorative woodwork on both the in- terior and exterior, and the large barn, built on massive stone foundations, • 66251 Cedar Road Historical Notes - Page 2 0 had decoratively painted doors across the front. Ton children were born to Charles and Ida Geyer, five of them were born in the log house. One of their children, Lloyd H. Geyer, owns the farm today. � ^f Source of Information Elkhart Truth undated article Howard, Timothy, A History of St. Joseph County, Indiana (1907), P. 1131 Atlases: 1075, 1929 Deed Books: No. Al, page |OU No. 35, page 369 No. 65, page 128 No. 68, page 510 No, 81, page 450 No. 81, page 451 No. 89, page 31 11 Approved by the Uistocic Preservation Commission, 3-1.6-92. 0 DEMOLITION STANDARDS: LANDMARKS/HISTORIC DISTRICTS Demolition. Demolition of a historic landmark or significant building in a historic district is disfavored and requires a certificate of appropriateness. Such a certificate of appropriateness shall be granted only if the owner demonstrates by submission of substantial, competent evidence that: a'� The property in its current condition is uneconomical or in a substantial state of disrepair, deterioration, or structural instability not created by the owner; b\ Historically appropriate renovation or rehabilitation is either technically or economioally impr,aotioal; and c) The owner has investigated and considered all reauonab'le alternatives to demolition, not simply the least expensive alternatives, and that all such alternatives such as sale, rental, or lease of the property have failed or with reasonable likelihood will fail or will not earn a fair economic return on value. . Continuation Sheet 66251 Cedar Road This is a proposal to demolish the summer house on the farmstead at 66251 Cedar Road. The building has deteriorated to the point that it is unsafe. There are no available means of financing the repairs that would be necessary to restore the building. The farmstead was owner -occupied (Lloyd and Mary Geyer) at the time the ordinance was adopted. The farmstead is now rented out by the current owners, the children of Lloyd and Mary Geyer, and the childrens' spouses. The summer house has been used for many years as a garage. Its foundation has deteriorated enough so that the building represents a hazard, especially to the children that now live on the property. Among other needs in addition to rebuilding the foundation, the roof is leaking and the shingles need to be replaced. The estimated cost for restoring the building is $14,762 (see attached estimate). No funds are available for restoration. The rental income from the property barely pays the expenses for maintenance, repair and taxes for the house and barn. Priority must be placed on maintaining the house as a safe and comfortable place to live. As can be expected, the maintenance requirements for the house are substantial. For example, it was necessary • recently to completely reshingle the roof of the house. The current owners note that they were not parties to the original agreement to put the summer house into historic preservation, and that the preservation ordinance was neither recorded in the land records of St. Joseph County at the time the ownership of the property was transferred to them, nor is it currently recorded. Owners: Arlene Marie and Leighton Stump, Wakarusa, Indiana Jimmie Dale and Eleanor J. Geyer, Greenville, South Carolina Richard Eugene and Patricia M. Geyer, Mt. Airy, Maryland Frederick Pierce and Judy Geyer, Columbia City, Indiana • MINUTES OF'THE REGULAR MEETING of the HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Monthly Meeting County Commissioner's 7:30 p.m. Conference Room Monday November 13, 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: John Borkowski, Martha -Choitz, Adrian Fine, John Oxian, J. Edward Talley, & Jerry Wiener. Commission staff present was: David Duvall, director, and Aladean DeRose, counsel. Also attending the meeting were: Kenneth P. Fedder,'Ralph M. Williams, Bevin Williams, Gabriel Shakour, and Donald Sporleder. III. Public Bearing A. Certificates.of Appropriateness 1) 1996-1024-8, 1319 East Wayne Street - Construction of rear yard privacy fence. • Mr. Duvall presented the,Staff Report and distributed photographs. Mr. Shakour briefly addressed the commission to clarify the location of the proposed section of fence. Mrs. Hostetler moved that the coamission approve the application. Mr. Borkowski seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously B. Second Reading for Local Landmark Designation Mr. Oxian introduced the- two proposals indicating that they were both of concrete block construction, a type not represented by any existing landmark. Although both are vacant and boarded, he noted that they both retain high levels of integrity. 1) 513 North IIarrison Avenue Mr. Duvall presented the Staff Report. Mrs. Sporleder inquired about the ownership of this property. Mr. Duvall responded that the owner is a Robert Fouts. She also inquired as to how long it had been boarded. Mr. Oxian stated that it had been at least 5 years. Mrs. Choitz inquired whether the Colfax Cultural Center had interest in the building; The answer to this was not known. Mrs. Sporleder asked whether the building fell within any identified district. Mr. Oxian replied in the negative stating that this was not really relevant but that it might be included in a Lincolnway West District should one come to pass. Mr. Choitz moved -to recormnend the building Lo the Con1mon Council for establishment as a Local Landmark. Mrs. Petrass seconded the motion. The motion passed with all members voting aye except for Mrs. Sporleder who abstained. 2) 1631 Lincolnway West Mr. Duvall presented the Staff Report. Mrs. Sporleder inquired about the ownership of this property. Mr. Duvall responded that the owner is C&C Property Management Co. Inc. and that this is the only property listed in the city under this ownership. He indicated that it has'a local address. Mrs. DeRose asked who the resident agent•is. Mr. Duvall stated that there had been • a previous ownership in an individuals name and at the same address and that staff had notified'this individual early in the year but that in the interim, the listed ownership had so changed which had delayed the presentation of this nomination to this time. He did not have the file material directly available to .identify this individual's name. Mrs. DeRose indicated concern that the Common Council will need to be satisfied that the notification was complete. Mr. Duvall noted that the building had recently been cited by the Dept. of Code Enforcement and that demolition had bee ordered by their Hearing Officer. A letter had been filed i -with the Hearing Officer, however the Director of Code Enforcement had not been present at the hearing and had not been able discuss the pending Landmark. Mr. Talley asked how these procedures would affect Code Enforcements actions. Mr.. Oxian indicated that the Director had been contacted and that they could delay their demolition as a courtesy to the commission but this was not required or binding. Mrs. Sporleder moved to table the matter to allow for identification of the local resident agent of the holding corporation. Mr. Talley seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously Mr. Talley moved to suspend the agenda for purpose of hearing the visitors with concerns about the Blake Gardens proposed .Landmark. Mrs. Sporleder seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Mr. Fedder introduced himself as the counsel for Ralph Williams & Associates and addressed the commission on behalf'of his clients. Ile noted that he believed the address given on the agenda to be mistaken, giving 52939 U.S. 33 North as the -address which is being used to identify this property. The site was formerly developed as a Howard Johnson's Motor Lodge. • He noted that his client had 'recently acquired this property with the intention of redeveloping it as a hotel/motel/restaurant "hub". He indicated that some of the Garden area would be retained in the new development but that some considerable area was proposed for fill activities. His client had received notice of this meeting and wished to present their preliminary intentions, being unclear as to the intentions of the commission. Mr. Oxian suggested that a special committee should be formed from the commission to discuss the project with the developers. Mr. Fedder stated that., he appreciated this concern. He appointed Mrs. Sporleder as chair with Mr. Talley and Mrs. Choitz completing the -committee. Mr. Duvall inquired about the proposed schedule for the development. Mr. Fedder conferred with Mr. Williams who concurred that the project development was at a point to proceed directly and quickly. Mr. Fedder stated that although they had been aware of the general site feature, the action of the commission had taken them entirely by surprise. He stated that the owners could meet with the committee in the: very near future. Mr. Oxian moved to accept the committee report and proceed with first reading at the December meeting. Mrs. Hostetler seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. IV. Regular Business A. Approval of Minutes 1. October 21, 1996 Mr. Oxian submitted notes on two corrections. Mr. Borkowski moved that the • October minutes be approved as corrected. Mr. Wiener seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. B. Treasurer's Report Mr. Wiener stated that there was no report but asked whether the President had arranged for a meeting with the representatives city administration. Mr. • Oxian indicated. that he intended to seek this meeting in the following week. C. Correspondence Mr. Duvall indicated that the office had received new copy of the CRP Part 61 procedures for Historic Preservation Programs and a Worldwide Web access guide from the National Park Service. Ile indicated that two letters had been sent to Jack Roberts, Director of Madison Hospital pertaining to the complaints received by the commission about the level of noise from their new building and the right of way for the pedestrian river path. D. Committee Report:; 1. Budget & Finance Mr. Oxian stated there was no business to report 3. Legal Mr. Oxian indicated that he had approached Common Council member Lucke about the ability of the commission to petition the Common Council for delay of demolition of a Landmark (often referred to as the five year ordinance). Mr. Lucke had indicated that the council could entertain a resolution affirming the opinion given by their attorney allowing repeated requests for such a delay. Returning to the issue of correspondence, Mrs. Choitz, inquired whether any response had been received from Madison Center. She observed that -she had gone • to the site for personal observation . Mr. Duvall indicated that he had also made personal observation of the noise problems. Mr. Talley indicated that he had met with Don Fozo of the Building Department. Mr. Pozo will be meeting with Mr. Urbanski, the facility manager, on Friday to present a letter from the Building Commissioner stating that the building is in compliance with the existing ordinance. Ile indicated that the next point in the process is to discuss with Ann -Carol Simons of'the City Attorney's office. Iie indicated that he had been drawn. in by personal contacts with the concerned residents. The outside lights have been put on a timer. Mrs. Choitz wished to be on record that the commission was addressing these issues on behalf of the residents. There was discussion about whether to refer the issue to committee. It was finally determined that Mr. Tally. would continue. to act as point person for the commission to organize a meeting with Madison Center administration to include Mrs. Hostetler as a resident of the affected district.and other pertinent city officials along with the plaintiff residents. 4. IIistoric N!,Lricts Choitz, co-chair of the committee, reported that the Project Access was proceeding, hr.ing mot cciLh constituents from Past, Wayne Street and Ed-ewater Place disLricts (two meetings each). The East Wayne group had indicated that they did still have a liaison group on paper at least but that they had failed to communicate this to the commission. The Edgewater meeting had yielded several parties interested in assuming the Liaison responsibilities. She added that the committee hoped to move forward to the review and revision if • required of the standards with these groups. The neat neighborhood meetings for other districts will not continence until March, however the corr:miuee will continue to work with these two groups through the winter to develop their organizational capability. She stated that she was generally encouraged by the proceedings. Mrs. Sporleder asked Mrs. Choitz to characterize the attitude which she found among the attenders, of these meetings. She stated that she found them to be • disgruntled. That in Wayne Street supporters are aware that Lliere is resistance to the district and that supporters who attended the meeting are somewhat afraid of losing the benefits of designation. In Edgewater, she found attenders to be, enthusiastic but .vary concerned about the affects of certain property owners on the district in general. Mrs. Hostetler, co-chair, indicated that there was much frustration with the effectiveness of Code Enforcement in the neighborhood. Mrs. DeRose indicated that she meets with Cathy Dempsey, Director of Code Enforc(-m(-,,nt, weekly and can transmit such complaints to her if provided with them. Mr. Oxian indicated that this was one more cause for the commission to seek the reorganization with the City which has been suggested. Mrs. DeRose asked whether the attendees at the East Wayne Street meeting were all of the "old -guard". Mrs. Choitz responded that there were several newer residents in attendance.. Mr. Oxian noted that he had heard that several new residents had been motivated to move into the neighborhood because it was designated. Mrs. Hostetler recalled that there. was one man in attendance who had lived there his whole life, his'father having been a salesman for Whitcomb & Keller. Mrs. Choitz noted that he had not attended the meetings about the original designation. 5. Historic Landmarks Mr. Oxian, cliair of the Landmarks Committee, reported the recommendation of the committee for the designation of: 1) 701 S. Chapin Street -the Oliver Powerhouse Mr. Talley moved that the commission proceed with this, nomination. Mrs. . Sporleder seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 2) 52939 U.S. 33 North - Blake Gardens Mr. Oxian noted that this determination was considered earlier in the meeting. 3) 304 IT Lafayette Boulevard - Madison School Mr. Oxian moved that the commission proceed with this, nomination. Mrs. Sporleder seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously_. Mr. Oxian reported that he and Mr, Talley had attended the public meeting to consider the fate of Muessel School. Although a vote was taken, the results were not reported. He indicated that the committee appeared to have been selected with the criteria of supporting school administration desires. Mr. Talley also observed that he. believed a significant number of the attenders were not property owners in the neighborhood. Mr. Oxian noted that a significant number ,of the attenders were owners and he believed that this group supported retaining the existing building. He indicated" that a committee meeting would be held to discuss the schools issue. Ile also noted that a bond issue would need to pass before the 'plans to replace the building could proceed. "r. Oxian then reported on the status of recommerrdati.ons previously made by the ('1ommission: A) 501 West Colfax - this recommendation is still tabled. B) Leeper Park - Leeper Park is tabled, but leas been scheduled for Public Hearing at the Common Council on November 25. Mr. Talley indicated that his impressions from the Parks Department were still sornewliat tentative but that they were not in active opposition. Mr. Oxian noted that in meeting with • concerned parties from Parks and other agencies, he had suggested minor changes in the standards changing a shall to a should would be acceptable to allow more discretion on. the part of the commission. 'Mr. Talley expressed his mild frustration with the delays in this designation process which has been muchtoo drawn-out. Mr. Oxian added that it had been agreed at this meeting that the standards would not be included in the ordinance itself. 'Mr. Talley • • asked, whether the commission needed to vote on the modification of the standards. Mr. Oxian answered in the negative, C) Brick Streets Local Landmark Ordinance Mr. Oxian reported that a meeting with the been arranged to discuss this recommendation. c. Dedications etc. City Engineer and his staff had 1) North Pumping Station Mr. Oxian passed around the photographs from the dedication of the North Pumping Station. Mr. Talley noted that there was excellent press coverage of the event. Mr. Oxian observed that lie believed the event would have been better attended with more advance publicity. Mr. Talley indicated that he believed that the this feeling was shared in the administration. He also noted that there had bee a great demand for the reprints of the program. ?) 16581 Chandler Blvd. - WPA This dedication was canceled due to the unavailability of press coverage. 3) Third Courthouse dome disassembly Mr. Talley noted that there had been good press coverage. Ile feels that a certificate needs to be prepared to go to those who received the pieces. _He also felt that the Director should be authorized to distribute the pieces still stored to the Indiana State Museum. The Iiannah Lindel Museum, NIRS, and Mishawaka Public Library received their pieces at the ceremony. Mr. Duvall observed that the pieces for the new dome were parked on a truck on Main Street and that members might be interested.to look at those before assembly. 5. Standards •,aintenance Nr. Fine, chair, announced that this committee had met to.discuss the Leeper Island wall and the proposed method of its repair. Mr. Oxian had not attended this meeting but observed that the commission had only approved the replacement at the upstream point of the island. His recollection was that the proposed method of replacement had not been adopted for future extensions of this work but that the issue of extending approval of this method to other ` sections had been referred to the this committee. In his meeting with John Stacotti and the Parks Dept., he had been left with the impression that they would appreciate the extending of this approval to include the rest of this wall. "sir. Talley recollected that the approval previously granted from the commission had been limited to the area stated on the application and that the chair had at that time wislied to extend the approval to include a wider arca but that the issue had been referred to committee to identify alternative methods (')) which might be approved for the extension of the restoration of the wall. lie st�lted that this «gas not to be understood as an approval of the extension of this WoriC. Mr. Duvall ,Mated that his understandinG of the.. r,Q�1 is that the commission can identify procedures whic,i it would recommen d(I appropriate but that such may not be stated in such a way that it — a requirement that one of these method,; be followed, precluding the appropriateness of yet unidentified courses of action. Mr. Oxian stated that the parties with whom he had discussed the issue just wanted some assurance that certain idefitified methods would be acceptable to the commission for their planning process. Mrs Sporleder sought clarification on the relative specificity of the solutions being sought to be described. Mr. Oxian indicated that very generalized descriptions were the goal of this exercise. THe. subject was returned to committee. G. Personnel Mr. Duvall reported no new items for discussion. E. Staff Reports 1) Staff Approvals Mr. Duvall reported the following Staff approvals: a. 1319 East Wayne Street - removal of rear yard tree causing damage to garage. This application was related to the item considered at this same address earlier in" the meeting. Mr. Duvall stated that by his reading of the standards, this COA was not required due to the size of the tree and its affect on an adjacent structure but that the applicant had desired the COA to resolve possible difficulties with his neighbor. Mr. Duvall indicated that he had discussed the matter with the neighbor and all was mutually acceptable.' b. 909 Riverside Drive. - In-kind gutter replacement. c. 742 Sancome - Removal and replacement of storm damaged tree; roofing shingle and half -round gutter; chain-link fence gate; concrete walk; well cap and brick knee -wall at front steps; and removal of volunteer trees causing damage to the well. 2) DHPA Grants a) 1995-96 1. Regarding the DHPA Grant status, Mr. Duvall reported that the State Review Board had met on Wednesday October 16. The North Pumping Station was recommended to the Keeper of the National Register. Tlie Northern Indiana College/South Bend Chilled Plow nomination failed for lack of a second to the • motion to so recommend it. Mr. Duvall accounted that Ms. Glory -June Grieff had spoken to the issue of its integrity but that the DHPA Staff had expressed Fconcerns in this regard which the board took as a caution. IIe felt that they had missed the point of the city planning significance of the structure when the DHPA staff emphasized the alterations to the building as its uses changed. Mr. Fine expressed incredulity that the staff tool: such a dim view of an application for which they had provided grant funding. Mrs. Choitz asked if this could be resubmitted. Mr Duvall indicated that it could be, especially if there were a willing developer. The St. Casimir's Parish_ District was very well received and even lauded by the board and was recommended to the Keeper of the National. Register. The Board also forwarded the Studebaker Carpentry Shop to the Keeper for a determination of eligibility as the present owner has registered objection to its being listed. 2. Mr: Duvall presented the product of The Economic Benefits Study. Heindicated that the document had just been received in the last week and that he had not had time to review it in depth. Four copies have been forwarded to the DHPA. b. Proposals have been received for the 1996-1997 DIIPA grant cycle project2. L"r. Duvall indicated that he had, not had sufficient time to review them critically. IIe asked thaL the co=ission empower the executive committee to consider these and approve selections of consultant. b) Mr. Duvall indicated that the DHPA grant cycle applications had been • submitted. Mr. Oxian indicated that the re -survey for the County which was incliided in this application should include New Carlisle. Mr. Duvall indicated tale proposal included all- towns e:;cept: South.Bend and Mishawaka. 3. Legal ..,Irs. DeRose had no additional report beyond the issues discussed above. • V. Old Business A. 201 North Michigan - Palais Royale local Landmark designation continued From the September meeting. .�x . Osian acknowledged a letter from Anne Kolata of the Dept. of Redevelopment indicating that they would prefer to await completion of the current rehabilitation of the facility before designation but that there would be no objection to designation at that time. Be accepted the supposition of this letter and allowed that the item may remain tabled for the duration and instructed the Director to solicit periodic reports on the status of this wort:. VI. New Business No new business was considered. .'1r. Talley indicated that the Liaison Committee of Riverside Drive LIID would be meeting on the following Thursday. VII. Bearing of Visitors 74r. Sporleder spoke to the immediacy of the threat to the Blake Gardens site. There was some discussion about how to leagally describe the area to be landmarked as it would not be the entire site. Mr. Duvall observed that the same problem would arise with the Oliver Powerhouse. VIII. Aunouncements & Miscellaneous Matters none • PX. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. 0 9,a LANDSCAPES STANDARDS AND CRITERIA 1101 FOR BLAKE GARDENS AN HISTORIC VERNACULAR LANDSCAPE 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 Histories! 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. 9.1 Introduction 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 Blake Gardens, including its Spatial Organization, Topography, Vegetation, Circulation, Water Features, Furnishings and Objects, Structures and Architectural Materials. 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 alterations) 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. 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. 7. 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. 8. The land, island(s), lighting, topography, vistas, vegetation, circulation, architectural elements, structures, spatial organization, park furniture, sewer covers, electrical and water vault and/or manhole covers, are subject to the terms of the landscape guidelines herein stated. 9. Items under Historic Preservation review include but are not limited to the following: 9.2 Spatial Organization (includes Views, Vistas, Landscape Spaces, etc.) Refer to Sections 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, 9.6, 9.7 and 9.8 for additional Standards and Criteria that may apply. 1. Views and vistas are among the most important aspects of a landscape, therefore, they Should be maintained and preserved. 2. All views, vistas, landscape spaces located in the area of the Blake Gardens Shall be preserved. All views, vistas, landscape spaces located adjacent to the ponds and Juday Creek Shall also be preserved. This Shall include the island(s), bridges, fountains(s), pump house, pier(s), benches, tables, concrete walls and balustrades. All views, vistas and landscape spaces Shall also include the entirety of Juday Creek, the floodway and the flood plain, the creek bank as well as the area lying between the roadway of Cleveland Road and the gardens, the abandoned traction company rail right-of-way and the gardens, the parking lot(s) and the gardens, as well as the area between the gardens and U. S. 33 North, also referred to as Dixie Highway. (See attached map, page 17, for locations) 2 3. Original or late; 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 allee. 12. Moving or demolishing historic structures that would alter spatial and visual relationships in the landscape Shall not be allowed. 13. Construction of new structures that would alter historic spatial and visual relationships in the landscape Shall not be allowed. 14. Intrusive views or new construction may be screened with compatible fencing or plant material so long as the screening would not detract from the historic character of the landscape. 9.3 Topography (includes the Shape, Slope, Elevation, Contour of land forms and Ground Plane, etc.) Refer to Sections 9.2, 9.4, 9.5, 9.8, 9.9 and 9.10 for additional Standards and Criteria that may apply. 1. All locations and items listed in 9.2.2 Shall also apply to this section and Shall be preserved. 2. Original or later contributing topographical features Shall be retained in their existing configuration and Shall be maintained through proper drainage, access and erosion control, and recognized soil management practices. 3. Alteration of existing or addition 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 outcropping) 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 be considered. 8. Wherever appropriate, plant materials rather than structural materials Should be used to solve erosion problems. Repair of all man-made objects and structures is strongly encouraged. 4 9,4 Vegotation (includes Trees, Shrubs, Ground Covers, Hedges, Allees, Fields, Forests, Planting Beds, etc.) Refer to Sections 9.2, 9.31 9.5, 9.7, 9.81 9.9 and 9.10 for additional Standards and Criteria that may apply. 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 be found in lists and inventories which were published in plans and reports of Blake Gardens. 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 and be compatible with existing conditions. 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 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 garden and With current factors such as security, ecological conditions and wildlife management practices. 11. Hazardous plants or portions of plants Should be removed promptly. 12. Plants with diseases that are difficult or not practical to control or cure Should be removed promptly to prevent their infection of other plants. 13. Mutilated or distorted plants Should be removed. 14. Plant replacements Should be added on a schedule that will insure a continuity in the landscape design. 15. Existing vegetation Shall be protected adjacent construction activities by fencing the root system prior to the start of construction. 16. All future plantings Shall be guided by original drawings and sketches of 0 Blake Gardens. 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: All steps, terraces, bridges, walkways, piers, water inlets and outlets, docks, pump house(s), fountains, walls, garden and street furniture, island(s), curbing(s), benches, lagoons, ponds, trees, shrubs, flowers, plants, vegetation, slopes, hills, terraces, and water flow. 2. Original or later contributing layouts of walks, roads, paved areas, bridges, structures, ponds, lagoon(s), water inlets and outlets, etc., Shall be retained and maintained. 0 6 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. 12. No vehicles Shall be permitted on any part of the garden surface at any time, except landscape management vehicles. 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 garden 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. 0 7 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, Creeks, waterfalls, lagoons, bridges, steps, terraces, 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 9.111 for additional Standards and Criteria that may apply. 1. Features which Shall be preserved include: the ponds, lagoons, bridges, fountains, fall of the water levels as originally laid out, both natural and man-made, water inlets and outlets, retention devices, curbing, walkways, pumphouse(s), island(s) and the location of Juday Creek in relation to the garden. 2. Original or later contributing water features Shall be retained and maintained. 3. Existing water courses or bodies Should not be altered. Consideration will be given to proposals that improve site drainage, improve water quality, enhance the landscape design or improve wildlife habitat. 4. Alteration of existing or addition of new water features will be considered if 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. 9.7 Furnishings and Objects (includes Benches, Lights, Signs, Drinking Fountains, Tables, Fences, Tree Grates, Flagpoles, Sculpture, Monuments, Memorials, Planters, Urns, etc.) 01 Refer to Sections 9.11 B, C and D regarding treatment of materials and features; and Sections 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 9.51 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: benches, bridges, curbing, walls, fountains, pump houses), steps, walkways, terraces, etc. 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 and 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. 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 cultural landscape design of the garden and garden system. 9.8 Structures (includes Walls, Terraces, Arbors, Gazebos, water falls Follies, Picnic Shelters, Plazas, Greenhouse, Steps, Bridges, Dams, Buildings, Balustrades, Tables, 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. 0 10 2. Refer to Sections 9.2.2 and 9.7.1 for structures, elements and materials that need to be preserved, such as Walls, Terraces, Arbors, Gazebos, Follies, Equipment, Picnic Shelters, Plazas,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. 7. New additionstalterations 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 acts of vandalism through proper procedures and methods. 9.9 Archeology Refer to Sections 9.118 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. 9 11 -, 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. 9.10 Accessibility Refer to Sections 9.11 B, C and D regarding treatment of materials. Refer to Sections 9.3, 9.41 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 recommends that work proposed to the materials outlined in sections B, C and D be executed with the guidance of a professional building materials conservator. 1. Removal of fallen materials from ponds, lagoons and waterways is encouraged. 9 12 B. Masonry (Brick, Stone, Terra Cotta, Concrete, Stucco and Mortar) 1. All masonry, brick, stone, Terra Cotta, Concrete Stucco and Mortar Structures Shall be retained. 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. Re -pointing 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 re -pointing 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 13. A test patch of the cleaning method(s) Shall be reviewed and approved on site by staff of the Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph County. Test patches Should always be carried out well in advance of cleaning (including exposure to all seasons if possible). 14. Sandblasting (wet or dry), wire brushing, or similar abrasive cleaning methods Shall not be permitted. Doing so changes the visual quality of the material and accelerates deterioration. 15. Waterproofing or water 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 0 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. 0 14 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 and 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 serialization 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, lights, drinking fountains, etc. 2. Original or later contributing metal materials, features, details and ornamentation Shall be retained and, it necessary, repaired by patching, splicing or reinforcing the metal using recognized preservation methods. 3. Deteriorated or missing metal materials, features, details and ornamentation Shall be replaced with material and elements which match the original in material, color, texture, size, shape, profile and detail of installation. 4. When replacement of materials or elements is necessary, it Should be based on physical evidence or documentary evidence. 5. If using the same material is not technically or economically feasible, then compatible substitute materials may be considered. 0 15 6. Cleanina of metal elements either to remove corrosion or deteriorated paint S61( 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. 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 it 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 serialization studies. It an adequate record does not exist repainting Shall be done with colors that are appropriate to the style and period of the building. 11 0 16 vier - /W.1.• ofhis part is X : I ff dt4 p ---/ 14 in. diffrm-nct, in level bef.c.. 1,J.ka AJ 0.110 (LAKE GAKDEKS 9 A.— W.Ikt j ll '91 e3 I'VLAND ROAD 520, Th. Bloke 3 r1d • tp 0400 W O tsih other Trees s -I Shrok Thereare 19MEwgreens i,jala,Wryvars old withm ffaRrOwir M t# 1w;Zp