HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 2006SOU Ty BFB
1865
Regular Meeting 4th Floor Council Chambers
'County -City Building
Monday, March 20, 2006 7:30 PM
I. CALL TO ORDER, ROLL CALL
II. PUBLIC HEARING
A. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
1.
COA# 2006-0227
1029 E. Wayne
2.
COA#2006-0224-01
721 Forest Avenue
3.
COA#2006-0307-02
508 W. Washington "Cushing House"
4.
COA#2006-0306A
Leeper Park West
µ 5. COA#2006-0224 Shetterly Park
D. STAFF REPORTS:
1. C of A Approvals; Correspondence;
B.
LANDMARK
A. Director's Report
{
r'fs R R.3
:`,
C.
NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATION
=: A
r
IV.
OLD BUSINESS
'
III.
REGULAR BUSINESS,
2. Southold Awards Breakfast
A.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
'
February 27, 2006
B.
TREASURER'S REPORT
C.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. President's Report:
2. Landmarks Committee
D. STAFF REPORTS:
1. C of A Approvals; Correspondence;
A. Director's Report
{
B'Assistant Director's Report
2. Legal
IV.
OLD BUSINESS
1. Chapin Park Final Draft at Printers.
i
2. Southold Awards Breakfast
V. NEW BUSINESS
'
1. Southold Awards Nominees
VI. HEARING OF VISITORS AND ADJOURNMENT
SOUTH BEND & SAINT JOSEPH COUNTY
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MARCH 20, 2006 MEETING
GUESTS: PLEASE SIGN THIS LIST SO THAT,
YOUR- PRESENCE CAN BE NOTED FOR OUR,
MINUTES
Print Name
Address
6111%�7 ll.����,s��� c27,(oo
Fle-te Pi nla,6 M C h [/a''0 Ri
je4" (fr um 1, S G, 1 o"zl -I-Io ql
V) IAW1�►S�
AllSignature ✓
-- 4th �•��� /l��I ���.�»c-5�..-
bl(n /0Z5 Vi ver,<de- N2.
�,L_
2,
1�e-b ek A.� 60 NNW i nnq Por A-aac P .
<j'r&Vv L-rzNsT SeS/7 ArInve,441 Lf
J Mot,/ --Dc.rjr- Z;Z 1 ",A-Ak-n4 kZ- AVE
19
�'` mRs-
N
STAFF REPORT.
CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR A
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
Date: March 10, 2006
Application Number: 2006-0227
Property Location: 1029 E. Wayne
Property Owner: Philip Schatz
Landmark or District Designation: Local Landmark
Rating: Contributing garage of 231 S. Eddy Local Landmark
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE/HISTORIC CONTEXT: The Dutch Colonial Revival design of
213 South Eddy and its garage located at 1029 E. Wayne Street is attributable to the firm of Austin and
Shambleau and was built for William C. Sibley in 1921. In 1985 the garage was converted to a residence
and is now a rental property.
APPLICATION ITEMS: To erect a garden bench /fence in the small narrow lawn in front of the apartment
-t oor. The bench will face the apartment door and be affixed to freestanding fence that will face the street.
The fence design will mimic the fence around'the nearby garden. The material will be stained wood.
Landmark Standards: Building Site and Landscaping: Required: ....Structures such as: gazebos.....fixed
garden furniture, trellises and other similar structures shall be compatible to the historic character of the site
...and inconspicuous when viewed from a public way. Recommended: ... Fencing should be in character with
the buildings style, materials and scale.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval. The overall design of the bench and fence is
compatible with the other two structures in this landmarked complex and will blend into the overall
appearance of its surroundings.
Application
- FOR -
Certificate of Appropriateness
Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend & St. Joseph County
125 S. Lafayette Blvd., South Bend, Indiana 46601
Mailing Address: County -City Building, South Bend, Indiana 46601
Phone: 574-235-9798 • Fax- 574-235-9578 • Email: historic@michiana.org
Website: http://commurdtymicWana.org/historic/
A Certified Local Government
OFFICE USE ONLY »»» DO NOT COMPLETE ANY ENTRIES CONTAINED IN THIS BOX »»» OFFICE USE ONLY
Date Received .21a7 12t,-OC.r Application Number 2 O O (r - 02-Zt7-
Past Reviews: 9 YES (Date of Last Review) ❑ NO
Staff Approval authorized by: Title:
Historic Commission Review Date: ATF -60 CLQ
;Local Landmark ❑ Local Historic District (Name)
❑ National Landmark [] National Register District (Name)
Certificate of Appropriateness:
Denied ❑ Tabled [3 Sent To Committee E] Approved and Issued
DATE
Address of Property for proposed work: 47% ` L= - ��'�
I Street Number an
S reet Name
Name of Property Owner(s): (Please Print)
Address of Property Owner(s). `
Contractor(s)Name: C-kevk4 S lc1 r�-
Contract Company Name: \ �'� 1 C-\�
C41111—
Contractor Address: 1 �S'C� r I Vere
City: S O ICY Phone:
Current Use of Building: 7 r1a�
(Sing! amity -Multi -Family -Co mer 'a -Cover nt-Indus�ial- Vacant -etc.)
Type of Building Construction: '5 I C. C.O
( Wood Frame - Brick - Stone - Steel - Concrete - Other)
Proposed Work: In-kind [:] Landscape Fq-Kew n Replacement (not in-kind) ElDemolition
(more than one box may be clucked)
Description of Proposed Work: 4D�C&11
��
dun XItiA c e -A r N M �.-n t i
wed)
d
Owner/Contractor. Fax- e-mail
(This office will correspond udt/h only one designee)
w •and/or
Signature of Owner Signature of Contractor
— APPLICATION REQtHREME M ARE LISTED ON REVERSE SIDE —
-,p 6V, /oq y%toi)t/
C f, �/-07 i X.Y
o -or 04 2 y-2ko,a tyN
� �-----�-ori•-I
!
l !
i ` I
iIIIIIE#11#.!
i
1029 E. Wayne Looking east. March 8, 2006. Looking to the north.
Looking from door to the south.
STAFF REPORT
CONCERNING REVIEW OF AN APPLICATION FOR A
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
Date: 03/08/06
Application Number: 2006-0224-01
Property Location: 721 Forest Avenue
Property Owner: Francis Sherwood
Designation: Chapin Park Local and National Register District
Rating: Contributing/Gabled-T
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE/HISTORIC CONTEXT
This is the Charles Collins house, which was built between 1890 and 1892. It is a Gable -T with some Stick and
Queen Anne detailing.
APPLICATION ITEMS:
Construct 6' by 12' rear addition with matching trim, siding, soffit detailing, block foundation, roof covered
with asphalt shingles; door to be reused and Velux skylight to be installed.
Construct 14' by 14' deck on the south side of house. Deck will be situated 10" from the house and 12" from
the ground. It will have a 10' by 14' pergola with lattice screening on two sides. Materials will be treated
lumber: 5/4 by 6 decking and 4 by 4's for pergola.
GUIDELINES & STANDARDS
III. New Construction. New work may be contemporary or may suggest motifs from historic buildings in the
district. A. Height and Pronortion. Prohibited. Additions that would add new height or change the existing fagade
of the building and change its scale and architectural character shall not be constructed. B. Building Materials.
Required. Materials used on an addition to an existing structure shall relate to the existing or original materials of
that structure (Page 77 —78).
C. Sheds and Accessory Buildings. Reauired. Sheds and accessory structures (gazebos, decks, doghouses,
playhouses, fountains and small reflecting pools, outdoor sculpture, children' play equipment, etc.) shall be located
at the rear of the property and as unobtrusively as possible while preserving historical relationships between the
buildings, landscape features and open spaces. Recommended. Accessory building designs should be compatible in
character and mood to the residence and the neighborhood (Page 79).
RECOMMENDATION
The proposed addition will relate to the existing addition in design and materials, and it will not change the scale
and architectural character of the fagade of the building as viewed from Forest Ave. Staff recommends approval
of the rear addition as submitted.
Staff met with the contractor prior to submittal of the application and reviewed some examples of design features of
Victorian gabled houses and their porches/verandahs, which could be incorporated into the design.
The guidelines note that decks should be located at the rear of the property and unobtrusively as possible. Though
4 feet will be obscured by the side wing, ten feet of the deck with the screened pergola structure will be visible.
There may be a less obtrusive placement of the deck behind the rear wall of the house and adjacent to the rear
addition. The deck could still be accessible from the side door of the house by a decked walkway. Staff
recommends further discussion with the owner, the contractor, and the Standards & Maintenance
Committee.
Application
- for -
Certificate of Appropriateness
Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend & St. Joseph County
125 South Lafayette Boulevard
Mailing address: 227 West Jefferson Blvd - South Bend IN 46601-1830
Phone: 214-235-4798 Fax: 219-235-4578 a -mail: sasaCHPC0mstjaep1LIn.us
Webslte:http://www.stjostpbcountyindLaniLconilsjchpAndel.htw
A Certified Local Government
0Bu:* use only»»>DO NOT COMPLETE ANY ENTRIES CONTAINED IN THIS BOX>»OFFICE USE ONLY
Date Received f? Z ' .2-q 2006
Put Reviews: ❑ YES (DATE OFL(.trhEVIEA}
Staff Approval authorized by:
Application Number: 2006- oL2_,4 - 01
0 NO
Title:
Historic Commission Review Date:
❑ Local Landmark National Landmark
National Register District ov—): Ch� �tk
Local Historic District (N—,):
Certificate of Appropriateness:
❑
Denied
❑
Tabled
Sent To Committee
Approved and issued
2006
Address of Property for proposed work: FoJS rlF
(^ Suer Nu.der o.dSsex Nave)
City : t 9cJ'ZL',44- 8F-02� Owner's Phone No: q— "i
Name of Property OWner(S):lr;uNn f%�,x-- S s-�✓�
Address of Property Owner ; -7-2-t &F*4,o,,r-;t rtsa- E 6 i
Contractor(s) Name: f2,40 -- ( rNo S KL
Contract Company Name:
Contractor Address: city: &Avb,�rsx-
Contractor's Phone No: V7 5 -
Current Use of Building: J (.sJC,t.L F,�4 kAL—' `t'
(Suigle Family-Mu/n-Family-Comm.,dal-Oovarnmant- industrial - Vacant - de.
Type of Building Construction: t t--C,i' C�> f-Ak -
(Wood Fraena-Stial -Stora. Siad. Conost. • Orhar)
Proposed Work: ❑ lnkind ❑ Landscape New ❑ Replacement(n«in-sindl
(mar than ane bac may be ch.atad)
❑ Demolition
t s
Description of Proposed Work: �DC (Z! T�5hjZ AbbITLosj
h % rbc
/4- AECJC W jQF. &X�
�ADDt-rtva) WLi` I�t�A7-�- �y�ts-n.JGa S(DwCo )
Feu, XMC.& uxt-4 . ac- -orb Sly- XG l�t�tit -r1a-=4rzD ;PA-Y.weo,
40D �>,t- \ 4 j�+� n E nn ruvr' c�et.`i� svy ,At VV- Of Y i• -t . n _die[
Owner/Contractor: Fax: , tj J mail. j
(. h" afar Mli 00lpond Mlth only one d—j-,)
&!ar �
Signature of Owner bignature of Contractor
J
03/09/2006 14:18 5742739310 ) THE UPS STORE PAGE 03/03
-1 :2 �(q
t
03/09/2006 14:18 5742739310
VEIUX offers a complete "
range of daylighfing prodcc!s � MG -
to bring the many benctits of
natural light into your home in
almost any cpplicction..
Sun Tunnels to when a
view to the world is nol
needed SLch cs closers,
laundry rooms, hdways
and second bcrhs,
Skylights fcr overhecd, oLl-
o�reach cpplicotfons or with
in'rF.=h applicotions where
egress is r,ot rr_quired.
.11
n
THE UPS STORE
ROOF, \g1INDOW.S. .
PAGE 02/03
t
�i Roo# Windows for
Imrecch oppiiccl,ons
requiring egress, such
as finished arks.
-.7,'.'4,rS22-- I
13
t
$.00 • ! lfi' } ��!• ter. .�' r.
My
r r
t v� r
�I 2 �i�" '� I,r.r: �"J± • ��y-, !r'
�, , 2 •+':pi`s' 1� �,�;a �• �,�,,�ti r ���` ' ,: f '"�`'" x. ��
T 1 C r a� { � ; � �'.•'�tiu. � , `�� �`` ski "�rk� J w x � s�
r" .�
A � alts''Y�� } +� �.�'R`•�``i'3J asi - s: � syl:-� �f?. c'� �v! ;;:
�` • '4+ K+„ ♦ i:� j '�ttS, E
ii. i � '�' �,.� '•.r�. ,fie .+ :: g�4
ta
it
ft. z - ._ yMfs�x+'.. .� r,�! �VTy•�}�� _�,�.r-'1....M+��----' % +M '� ;vw'�„ •t' - i s v
Ito
STAFF REPORT
CONCERNING REVIEW OF PROPOSED ALTERATIONS TO
A FACADE EASEMENT PROPERTY
Date: 03/08/06
Application Number: 2006-0307-02
Property Location: 508 W. Washington, "Cushing House/Book Inn/Cushing Inn"
S
Property Owner: Berry & Sue Kessler
Designation: Facade Easement, West Washington Nat. Reg. District
Rating: Outstanding/13
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE/HISTORIC CONTEXT,
Albert G. Cushing built this superb Second Empire house in 1872 with a carriage house. The front doors won 15`
prize for design at the 1893 Columbian Exposition. Cushing owned the A.G. Cushing & Co. drugstore, was the VP
and director of the First National Bank, and had stakes a foundry and three car -manufacturing companies. His son,
Albert Howard Cushing, and daughter-in-law, Elizabeth Tutt Cushing, eventually inherited the house. It has been a
four-star bed and breakfast for several years and is now owned by Susan and Berry Kessler.
APPLICATION ITEMS:
Roofing: 1.) Replace existing slate roof with ECOSTAR composite slate: colors and shapes of new shingles will
match the existing as closely as possible. The design patterns will be replicated. (Visual roofing schematic will be
provided the day of the meeting.). 2.) Replace three -tab asphalt roof with ECOSTAR composite slate. Will also use
color scheme from main roof. 3.) Cover the sides of the rear dormer with composite slate. Flashing and counter
flashing will be copper.
Chimneys: Remove three vacated and failing non-contributing chimneys (located at the rear of the structure).
Staff has approved the soffit repairs, the replacement of the flat roofs with EPMD rubber roofing, the replacement
of the tin metal roofs over the dormers with copper, and the addition of two downspouts to 'increase water drainage.
DEED OF EASEMENT STIPULATIONS AND STANDARDS:
The easement for this building covers "the exterior surfaces of all buildings and improvements (including without
limitation, exterior walls, roofs, and chimneys)" and it stipulates that: "Without the express written permission of
the Grantee, its successors, or assigns, signed by a duly authorized representative thereof, no construction,
alteration, or remodeling or any other thing shall be undertaken.or permitted to be undertaken on the Property
which would affect either the exterior surfaces herein described, or increase the height, or alter the exterior fagade
(including, without limitation, exterior walls, roofs and chimneys) or the appearance of the buildings and
improvements located thereon, or which would adversely affect the structural soundness of the building or
improvements on the Property..."
"...no future development of any kind whatsoever shall be permitted on the Property, unless the plans and exterior
designs of such proposed future development have first been approved in writing by the Grantee, and only if such
proposed future development shall conform with applicable local, state, or Federal standards for construction or
rehabilitation within the district wherein the Property is situate."
Applicable local standards are excerpted from the B Standards for Local Landmarks: "B. Treatment. Treatment
shall be defined as any change of surface material that will not alter the style or original form. Such improvements
include reproofing... and may involve a change that can potentially enhance or detract from the character of the
landmark. A treatment change of any surface whether on the landmark or in its environment may require a
Certificate of Appropriateness if it significantly alters the appearance of the landmark. The Commission should
review the proposed treatment for character and style consistency with the original surfaces" (Page 3).
"C. Renovation and Additions. 2. Materials. Additions and improvements involving any new material in the
landmark 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" (Page 3).
The applicable Federal guidelines from the Secretary of the Interior's standards for the rehabilitation of historic
buildings are: "Replacing in-kind an entire feature of the roof that is too deteriorated to repair — if the overall form
and detailing are still evident — using the physical evidence to guide the new work. Examples can include a large
section of roofing, or a dormer or chimney. If using the same kind of material is not technically or economically
feasible, then a comparable substitute material may be considered."
RECOMMENDATION
Roof. The mansard roof on the main portion of the house is covered with red, gray -green and blue-green scalloped
and rectangular slates with diamond and flower patterns. The exposed fasteners are showing signs of corrosion and
some slated have slipped. Some portions of the starter rows have been replaced with new slates, but water
infiltration continues to be a problem. The contractor is concerned that much of the slate will crack during removal
precluding reuse of all of the existing 130 -year-old roof slates and having a patchwork -like end result if new slate
was interspersed with the old. The other factor is the additional cost of all new slate — about $21,000 above the cost
of the synthetic slate.
The contractor has worked with an ECOSTAR representative to replicate the colors, tile shapes and design patterns
of the existing slate roof in the synthetic slate product. Both the local and federal standards do not preclude the use
of an alternative material as long as it is a comparable substitute material or duplicates the original. The re -roof of
the rear hipped roof with synthetic slate and the siding of the dormer with the slate will be consistent with the style
and character of the main portion of the house. The proposed alterations will not increase the height of the
building, alter the stylistic character and form of the fagade and the mansard roof, or adversely affect the structural
stability of the house. Staff recommends granting approval.
Chimneys: There are six chimneys on this building. Two are finely corbelled and will remain. The four others are
utilitarian, have been modified, and were added at a later date. The contractor proposes to remove three of these
utilitarian chimneys. They are also no longer in use. One is located next to the rear dormer (See photo 5 and 12)
and it appears that the interior unglazed bricks have been exposed and are spalling (photo 12). It is a main culprit
of water infiltration. The other two are located on the northeast side of the house and rear addition (see photo 7).
These three chimneys cannot be seen from the most prominent fagades seen from West Washington and the parking
lot to the west of the house. The removal of the chimneys will not increase the height of the building, alter the
mass, proportions or character or its main fagades, or adversely impact the structural stability of the building. Staff
recommends approval for this portion as well.
t50UT$88 Application
ao,i+l+;l�►�ifi%�� - FOR -
Certificate of Appropriateness g0.
Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend & St. Joseph County A
. tr 125 S. Lafayette Blvd., South Bend, Indiana 46601
1tt6S Mailing Address: County -City Building, South Bend, Indiana 46601
Phone: 574-235-9798 • Fa=574-235-9578 • Email: S85SGNPCta
CO• Si-leLt��.. ih.Vt.
Website c/www.0,V1* 4,e.+un4j Wd ane.. e.-1
A Certified Local Government Si�i'Y i�+dgr.liwl
OFFICE USE ONLY>» >> DO NOT COMPLETE ANY ENTRIES CONTAINED IN THIS BOX »»» OFFICE USE ONLY
Date Received-1:f1ke -1 t 20061 Application Number 2 0 0 6 _ 0301- W -
Past Reviews: ❑ YES (Deteolustiteviea)
Staff Approval authorized by:
n NO
Title:
Historic Commission Review Date: Mxi2a}}�OTtr+2ooto
:..,...1 b... ;..:a.k EILeetil Flis4er+e-DiatsirF tl�nrd
❑ (-National Register District (Name) W QST V�IRst}+N4Toti1
Certificate of Appropriateness: �PcGlko� QRS tll`(�TI-
C]Denied 0 Tabled F] Sent To Committee E] Approved and Issued
DATE
Address of Property for proposed work: 508 West Washington
Street Number and Street Name
Name of Property Owner(s): (p►easeprint) Berry and -Sue Kessler
Address of Property Owner(s): 508 West Washington- South Bend, Indiana 46601
Contractor(s) Name: Gary Van Overberghe
Contract Company Name: Van Overberghe Builders, Inc.
Contractor Address: 53922 Olive Road
City: South Bend, Indiana 46628 Phone: 574-289-0341
Current Use of Building: Commerical (Bed and Bea kfast)
(Single Family - Multi -Family - Commercial - Government - Industrial - Vacant - etc.)
Type of Building Construction: Wood frame
( Wood Franc - Brick - Stone - Steel - Concrete - Other)
Proposed Work: ® In-kind ❑ Landscape E] New M Replacement (not in-kind) Ej Demolition
(more than one bar may be clerked)
Description of Proposed Work: Please see attached.
Owner/Contractor. Fax: 574-289-1408 e-mail Bary@vanoverberghebuilders.com
(This office will corresp nd with only one designee)
and/or
Signature of Owner Signature of Contractor
Van Overberghe Builders, Inc.
53922 Olive Road
South Bend, Indiana 46628
574-289-0341(Phone)
574-289-1408 (Fax)
ADalication for
Certificate of Appropriateness
March 6, 2006
Re: Berry and Sue Kessler
508 West Washington
South Bend, Indiana 46601
Description of Pronosed Work
1. Repair soffits, associated detailed trims, and dormers.
• Repairs will utilize two types of processes and materials.
a. Repair and/or replace applicable trims with like material.
b. Form two part epoxy compounds to replicate existing trim style and design.
2. Roofing:
• EPDM roofing:
a. Install new EPDM rubber roofing on all flat roofs and ledge roofs at bottom of
mansard roof and slopes roofs, utilizing manufactures specified guidelines for
installation.
• Simulated Slate Roofing:
a. Remove asphalt shingle roofs and slate roofing down to roof sheeting.
b. Install composite type shingles to resemble real slate over all sloped roofing
areas.
c. Composite slate roofing to resemble existing slate in style, color, and pattern.
d. Composite slate shingles are an ECOSTAR roofing product designed to
resemble real slate roofing.
i. Color and shapes of shingle used will replicate existing as close as
possible.
ii. Patterns to the existing slat roof will be replicated.
iii. New area where asphalt was previously removed will follow the main
color scheme.
iv. Rear dormer to receive composite slate shingle on sides.
3. Remove vacated chimneys (located at rear roof of structure) as they serve no vital
function, are failing and need to be re -constructed.
4. Install an additional downspouts, one on the east and west side of structure. Downspouts
to be 6" corrugated galvanized painted to blend into structure.
a. Presently there is one downspout on rear of structure to handle all runoff from
entire roof, which is contributing to soffit decay.
Res tively submitted,
ary Van Overberghe
Van Overberghe Builders, Inc.
131"!711.
Majestic Slate Class A Installation Guide
PRODUCT IDENTIFICATION
This area provides identification of the product and a toll free contact tele-
phone numberfor questions or assistance with the product and installation.
ele-phonenumberforquestionsorassistancewiththeproductandinstallation. t Uci1tC .64— Q
IMPORTANT INFORMATION -
This area of the the provides pertinent information about installation and
the need to use a trained applicator to install the product. : • • • • ' ' ' ;,„;�,s�,;,;�
QUALITY INFORMATION --�� _=—
This
"' wV.�'..�.�..
C
This area of the tile is used by the production department to denote the
date the part was manufactured. This allows tracking of quality by produc-
tion time. 4tE4WN
INSTALLATION MEASUREMENT
Two marks are molded into every tile. When these marks are placed in
alignment with the top edge of the previous row of tiles, proper tile expo-
sure is provided automatically.
TILE FASTENING
Molded into each tile is a fastener locator. This assists during installation
for proper positioning of the fastener.
GAP
During installation the tiles must be placed a minimum of 3/8" apart. Tiles
must never be installed directly adjacent to each other. This area of the tile
states this in both English and Spanish.
Majestic Slate Class A
Chisel Point Design
12" wide x 18" long
Majestic Slate Class A
Beaver Tail Design
12" wide x 18" long
Premium Roofing Premium Performance~
/�7Majestic Slate Class A 1.E� j==
Beveled Edge Design 'T.=
,..�•_ ...mow
t� 12" wide x 18" long `-
r.
r
s IV
Majestic Slate Class A
Colonial Design f`
10" wide x 16" long
H;�' :y o.1Ctvd
S-oS
Nov:x( tNStii4A ' M OZ
4..
TNOTO ; Sob W.46Si\tKxaTO,3
�1oRT� � Nears} �T �ac��s
S
N
C:
k?
M
0
900Z/
� t
rn
J
Jiff
malloll
'��'��?�' •rte �lf'�►�+ f , _ l +' "�' t-..", ��a+„� �
^�_ •'��A �, �'�{�w �^a fes' '"%'- •% � // i
,I
(74 Q I L.E Qd O lti
Ckki"Iszy -PROP(-)-Jr=o I:--oP- REMOVAL,
7 ,
i5:DVTr• +
�Acl-T C-oa-"�e C)
f- 2-0o:V
mcrr--
Swc-7L-F-
DOW" E ->P007 :F:02.
I'Ri'-' 51015 OF tfoLlc,,E
w
RIOE, Am.
F,
PIK
uIr
m
am—SWOM=
------ ----
-7. 7-
plic)-rc> I '. 5;;OFPrr nFTr- jZjO(L-� 11Dvj
0
41 1
tiff wy .Y t. •
t
t. 1f' '�� �M y'.Yt;,,; �'f titi t,::.l.'...�M.. ; ., 4.:•
t ��,.� ,,apt;;;;,:„ ��,,`• ` rs �'::^.a,'=•'t. , <
a f v -f '.{qn° rN�',','•' _ �� M' '•�'i� ;!_. }t�': �i: 1�y✓ �': %.Mrn �{�
� , � s. �\��id:� ,��.� � `{ � `v. ; +� ,y i"mss •��r�';,�1'�:yat, 4i%�'t' 2':��+-1 4� s' � + � "�`_ `� '�'ti vl � ' . '�
t �µr!'i. ��e a i+ � `C"' ; r •Kt�'�`£y I`1I� 1 ,i«y a 1. t '``���' ' '.
,a • x �,- { x z � t� • W' '" , t f k �4^i r�' 2 .�y� _ .... ,�`'.: ;k4 � �' e :tet «. �Sl
°� Yiiy� ,.'a•T'%r � '�; "j1 -�:•.+� u>� :.'ir� ,.i� .. ..`,��` '�:*1a' ,2
F4�
�t , sot �� .:;b i t� a ,�,' at • '�'t ° `"' ,r`,� � K� '.
,•. :r .i 1,' t.5.'`__,t �} tt - ,� Y� ,.Y'.•!'` �'�yw 'i��4:r, ``;� .7 W''�'' ��Y«
^ % %'2 • -C.�,i' ' i }\t 1 ,5 � �' • <4 .
t,.. .'';.i •,,d J �7:a. �..�i
R. ,t* ��t�, �' ! �.c, s. ,j \ . � ' rp ~�''�f `^y°';2., .'t .• �"•'•Y � � �' t .. ii� wt";`4h"yv„, ' x;�(.:
',,t,� *;�.. .. 't^ ;r,�yt 't ��' agf. �'t:Y«, �� r l'=e���<;;;�'r'�:�t'`# :'a .'.`..� ...�... ' { �' '�:,r,,. �+, i`,•'.`�;a`" ;ry,�, .
#' _ �� '� ''�'yl,iyj , 1�.. .� '�F�s c iY;„a�; "� a�°,� „ani'-+ — }_,»F;' "�e`':s `+` � ,�q' �,« ,�rof "� ♦,�,1�{��Y:�}
�'� t�j. �`. � 1-T �r _ y..��`/ �� .•va.,e` a'v^.t� '1^'`:, .t �' � ''t �''rtSfi ,
t 3i,�'p ,k.• s ; 44 .� ti.� ',.�t'Sdu�lT.i�Y.\�`i`-:,r, n.r ,,h, �w:.r:+ �.t"�j �F .. $:e
� .�k {r�:=;:�:,,� t � y�j•:r��'/� „su. r,,;.'y�t”' 3,''S.t,.* ��.,., r° ! r„4 r ,� "��� �.,c�'."'��': ..�
p �g aG. E .�..•
i a�{f. ��r.• '; `•vgry �+1', �r"?", .LL:s''„+i�` t. VIN.er\„%�u
E \R,.] .ir `1 "t-^.tI^.S t�saF .;.� :�. w�.e4^2.•."`,"Y�a.r.,, ..�":r't.: r.y:-�,? "k. t�a.. \ ..{'l 6 ,�, ••.v YC � ttl'
,.1 • _ ! : i` ,c . );' `�« <y,�}• f ,t, an,�F;� :s .„res_ j ,{}, .�4 :.t ,..:i k • `y �9 �.1 . � .gin, ��t::
'.� a'G "�'� ' Irl `: ,=.�? 1 v t '�'-i`*.. .�..}�'�',., „"•y .,fi�: .. 'per,",:' . "?ia ` @r:r.. �.:. ,�, �1,
a t'' �`. - ;"��.�'' ;i...x,.. ,�:<' '��,e•,M., ;(� ;az+t��.;�� : �:..:� q �"�•_ ,,,aa, *'-�� � 1yi�;k."1 � o-.
"` 4t '� ,:i'' t :�r' ,tii5� :,ty i5, i•:,,j,•�v .. r',�q�. n'j,.. .tiSv.t� 4. ;:.d° } �••`t_v,.' �,� T. y
•4• ! �j:1 .'t"}. �.r-:E'" ,.a c'`'r. `zY,-}"eye. ,amu {,..., .;- k} ��.. Ja.
.,�. i;nu' •,':'•'4... .fin:•'`°;tq .�,qB ,i'""M. {. t \..t ":ro, u .,�y,•, i,' ;i ; 3#.• :°k' ;,i*:"'` •.
,� +t� ta�4.�YG'.3��.•:�'1>,•:�a ::`rte ���. .,ai/ ,rsi'_ 'v�,`� �' •,]
t - �'-. ", w? ..Y" , ja" v.c,?n' ��$. ,d ' � �A �> • \
sa,
�.: �gg;J F;,''.�':• �yx N v.�,;�„�'.n,'.�.�1 `+. �,�.t',y } .,S ,.•� g�w{�. 'S*a.ye ,,�&r :. ;ip 'q 'Is.}.Y ,c�`,. r, s•w
,,t. t'"i. ':ik .'t+i, �'}:i;^',r'•” �"`r :NP.Et.,. y.".i a,tn^ 4
r
�.. ..}r..e�'k `,F� •},._ i4�'S .p,• ,;t.:<y.. _ •`�Y” tv° g.n'`, y'LS �:+y •"w"°'#.- ✓ ;,n'
1 � S F., Y '* 3' '"„,x , mi<�, +^,f�.,,' <'ti `.y y. y°•G;�r . Y<5it,°.�� .}L3y ? t�.;=$,+' f: �r ,a t�'�•p t 1-.;;r . l'` .� +a." ��n **x'. .•?� .z-
' 7 y 5. - -, a r x +c >,,,, 1 '$s � , , r i t},, `� S.N.• +a &' ^ � ti.: a+.
.•'4�' jj ' �,F;. , f . �F«u ,�' %• n }i}[ x . t,.i ,: x.:'5:,, ?±y `��! 4 4t:" � .' }fti �. ,?A' Lz' J•" .;. +r' x.�. aat 7 C�r. ,2`k
'�' \ \4 t,�' t�,'t,�i'a �n.. .; 7'w ::i'�1, �.�7f ,.x. ,y�:,�. 9 _4,' 4 �vi:F`,#';z,.� �;,~` s?N'' i•.. �'.. .:4.t +. s' ,y.` g�, ,a.,. �± ,Y .1iG%r �`"�;
�, r ,l:y�F >-.t '4�` • tis' �� -�+k` '°''ir�+'i•. i4. `: �} '4: ,m"n% •'F ;;.�`, -�,', , �+.'s. ���+
} .aa,,,,w.k.a1., n ;,,�'.�,"�, "z � * ' =r 't •.1 �; { ` $ bt' - A'. Y`' ;6�. t. ��" `, � "* r u><, ' ls* . 'F
`t : t 4�.. �• `+,. �' ,� •,;•�„ �?^" .�e. ' c'' t ,..M: �' 41� ��r �;.;t ,;v, t. 't t 'R AL �t�_ ,. t„n,:� , �'t-x=; art ,' 1
h i w:.`t F,+ay.. •��'' ^}. ,'xra°9,`' ,f, xt' � �4�'(''�r. .�` .�.. �, Sa' * ;R,,i � 'w; y'\ v.: �'��,.':. ''�:.,u .^`+.��.
�'�,�• ,,�, t. ,C.c ..t' ? t 'tY!' .ti��< ,`�.3 "fid :�`;-}.':'= '",,`,'•, i 1". '_t.� ''§fit'"},t:'4E, s;, 'ir ws,`4s '�5, �,,
f k R. �, :�Y�="`' 3 i�F Y�� t',.. "t,•.,}:�.�' Lt r: rt, 'r �t �*,. i�,i';y. ,.9.
�' i. , A . s - " y''�':t!°_';.' ?,,,a;�P.- �i . i.'„�e sz.,.t 7.' 't.. ' : .{•, - t , u i'y'"4'`.'•.4, ,i�g�',?,-:r w �,i•L� �:a+w'
i ,°r,. » xiw•�'tf.3,�� ��' .�. ` � .� k p,�” i;�,,,, v'� ! � s �-`",M ♦'' fir-"�`�'�` . �,.- •`�;� . i ; „F' ��' ,'h'\t�M�'P'v... �: S zt'' �k;: a' _ �,yy.�,' �" .
i. '? r+ �:i� �"`S `4�''`�' xs� " r+'�: .1 gL �:`"'�;� i:"4a:'t�5"r �.t C i .; . ,,,�c.`. ._E'. Y';�<S 'via. s,�:+; W-t��°s. •:�. 4 "'+r ����
'� '_t•�11i '�{A°' �'�!, a .Y�,� �.,: r4�.S�. ```, �t` � .y' a -�•.,. xs. rT '4 �..
y?'aa-t�.?: ttt, i4.. %' l,' .4 �;,i,v,Y c•., ti�
q�,^,,�,:
\ 'it.,^�gr��'�,yiµ}°''tl,t �:� "J �;\t > a.` '? ``Y'` F 1,�y,�`i,J✓
syr
''I
•
t�
t
. fir.
' •j ii � � t � � � ;
jue' A• AE. 5 .?F4
10
ti
>t.. , .a rr /`� �^ `r J �'� �' '"3 `.:�'�'� � r , „�, 'ref +�,,,` f� -!` •�' ��/
sS ,.'Y <<I --�:k�•�"..r.� ,rp `'1 0'"....f �w }'• va` ,.,i''� a`''
STAFF REPORT
CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR A
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
Date: March 6, 2006
Application Number: 2006-0306A
Property Location: Leeper Park West
Property Owner: City of South Bend
Landmark or District Designation: Local landmark and National Register Landscape Landmark
Rating:
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE/HISTORIC CONTEXT: Leeper Park is a designed landscape
located in South Bend, Indiana in a residential area immediately north of the Downtown commercial
district of the city. In 1911, noted landscape architect George Kessler prepared a master plan for South
Bend to develop a citywide park and boulevard system Leeper Park became a focal point within Kessler's
plan.
APPLICATION ITEMS: Install storm sewer from Navarre to the St. Joseph River under Lafayette Blvd.
This will entail digging up a section of Leeper Park from Riverside to the St. Joseph River. Install sidewalk on
eastside of Lafayette, and narrowing Riverside -Lafayette intersection
Standards for Leeper Park: 9.5 Circulation #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 ... Any damage caused by any
vehicle, shall be repaired immediately to look as it did prior to said damage. #13 Construction of any type
within the park shall be done so as not to disturb any feature of the park. Sheeting 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.
#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 alternation does not alter the basic concept of the historic landscape
design and #4 When replacement of circulation layouts is necessary, it should be based on physical or
documentary evidence.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval. The removal of the sod necessary for the storm
sewer will be replaced also the tree. Exhibit 3 of the Leeper Park Cultural Landscape Report by the
Westerly Group indicates the presence of sidewalks on the east side of Lafayette in Leeper Park and also a
narrower intersection at Lafayette and Riverside. The tree roots of any existing trees will be avoided by
the use of cut outs in the sidewalks.
g QRS,
m
C4 '
o p",
211 c
� oo = ii
"wu
- 6{
e
F6I1N�L ..
��
j Is
I7
ou x.duu- LLC
N
N
STR LQ157
N
+00.0. LT. Loc t STK. 10. 152 +25.0. — uc t
- SEE SHEET NO. 14 GATCH BASIN TYPE K-10 MID 14 LFT
+564.0.w LT UNE t'I STK. NO. 51 of 12• PIPE REDID / /
STAND. MANHOLE TYPE AND 61 LFT +23.4 UNE t' SiR N0. 150 - ; • 1 /
CF 24' PIPE REG. �.wf
_r 7.7' iIF kllE STTL- I 154 GRASS MANHOLEPIPEERRED 0 AND 239 LFT
LEEPE! PARK GRASS
/ ..L� -iAPP.e --co-�------------_" �1A'f6�y E
- CANc. St EWAL x3' _ em+ - - _ - _GONG. $IDE1rAUC— - - — - - - _ i ^�
N jr1'a 1r - A4PHAI T CONSTRUCT I% II •�
�LAFAYERE Z. 2,.4' RT. LINE t• STR N0. 156 14K
` TYPE l'n AND 30 LFT ��
_\ ply'
P C WS J A` Y
1 Ek9PkAz t D05T. !I/W-00 - La
V
CRASS E it``....rJj
1.y3 +63.. is ,.r. )bee -'STIR N0. 162 I
O O 1 17 ' I 11 �p� p �uv�A s' Gk 1'4 Am x Lr I
1\ 6OF 48 PIPE REaro
g +u.o 1 NO. 158
(E
` 'Id
L.l tlAS1A K-10 AMU 29 LFI
+ A, .1[AE_ N0. 1'�i3 X20 p. OF 1Y PIPE REO -0:e }STIR. NO. 181 jyt,
sEE SHEET NO. 14 L+98.TL + .6' Rr. ow 'T'STR. NO. 50
ASPHALT
�I
ASPHALT
40 0
40 CD
y - .+. 0,, ri7N R2E +
NI "'ar Town co
ob
+20A 1.6' Lr. LINE V STR. NO. 163 IN-
jF! DIE CI E7CILL VALVE REO D. -
TONS OF CLASS L .RlP~. 24•
OUTFALL DETAR. .
SHIT NO. 20
CRASS
oe
- 3 U& W SEE NOTE THIS 4iEf ; - f `�'-�ivd f_.7� !•-!!,r .:.-.
!!5 Qg 51Ilia
11! •_C^^r. q.
i r i2,Li!! �� • • ! REMOVE _ ! i��+{M rrrrr .�CI��/''j>�(
A �10.35�///S?Y�D HM&SURFACE. ON
HUX WrEINAVATE, ON ® 6• CFM CONCRETE PAVELD(r iT)R ORNEWAYS ONP PROTECT 9 CURB AND OURER CON
8. CRETE TREE
SM HMA. BASE. ON 6• COMPACTED AGGREGATE No. 33. EASE gCM RAMP. TYPE •'• P11E HYDRANT. ASSEMBLY 411ARDRAR,. RENOYEd64RESET
8 SIOEWAU4 CONCRETE 4• �(2117�5
6• COMPACTED AGGREGATE FDR BASE N0. SS K STAMPED CONCRETE, 8• SUM SIG DEDIIOVE"AfO'tOSET'� CCASMiI � TO GRADE
n6' COMFIT CONCRETE PAVEMENT F'OR DWVEWAYS CURB. CONCRETE SOOOED'UWN�
16ATER VALVE TO GRADE
No� "' �` • — _ — REL.OGITE M OTHERS)
680 - - .. a ? - - L - �A LKi1TWG snLucluTURE REMOVE MIO RESET
wu
•Y i
675 I.....� I w I r 7-
171 PIPI
670 e
! 665
.t . .
g � LL
{ 5 660
^ 655
650 r
22+00
EUDLZ
-
23+00 24100
�I.r xw ��r3�. �. i. Wr• �i. �, iYNW}V
r R
1
l
1e
25+00
LAFAYETTE BLVD. AND BARTLETT Sr.
ROADWAY AND SEWER RECONSTRUCTION
PLAN AND PROFILE
UNE T
1511a
NO.
xaxt xrr. �•..
vor. wro r.r
05-015
NOTE- ALL AND TOPOGRAPHY ON THIS SHEET DESCMED
FROM UNE 'L' UNLESS OTHERWISE N07ID.
SIDEWALK TO bcreTrD TO E705711+G CURB RAMP. CONTRACTOR
TO VERIFY LOCATION -
SM /1 - LAPEL NW FLANGE BOLT ON FN O SE COR LAFAYETTE t ELARRETT
STA 17+33.1. 294' RT. LN. t• ELEV. 666.17 Qn
BM /2 - NE COR OF TOP STEP TO LFEPER PARR TDM CT BLDG 6W
STA. 22+66.9. 413' LT. LN. V ELEV. 683-01 -
BM 03 - NW nANGE BOLT ON FH O SW COR PAWL LN t MAIN Sr
STA 4+064. 313' RT. LN. •P• El". 67LIG + . 675
w -1 -A I 670
665
660
655
26+00
601ANA er. n I ora r
650
27+00 ;
26+00
RPM" A WE '
,/"Ior
"wu
- 6{
e
F6I1N�L ..
��
NIAVW MAMM
I7
ou x.duu- LLC
,Wlbit 3
.PLAY CTOoli D
LJlr�— R
S T.
'o X)X-
$
�► .
C PRESERVATION CO�,i�ylyg5lON OF
gISTO ND
COUNTY+ INDL-NA
& ST. JOSEPH
' � T souTx
.. � FOR J
P
aARK
� s s s -'-
S"TC-11 ur LEEPE'R
• . �eor�
:.-�s->.9>S
4s .90
ISO 1
i
'' • , ; . t' PREPARED 8YVo
25'14.-1 L 2:T T
v
V.
wh
'o X)X-
$
�► .
C PRESERVATION CO�,i�ylyg5lON OF
gISTO ND
COUNTY+ INDL-NA
& ST. JOSEPH
' � T souTx
.. � FOR J
P
aARK
� s s s -'-
S"TC-11 ur LEEPE'R
• . �eor�
:.-�s->.9>S
4s .90
ISO 1
i
'' • , ; . t' PREPARED 8YVo
25'14.-1 L 2:T T
v
Date: March 8, 2006
Application Number:
Property Location:
Property Owner:
STAFF REPORT
CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR A
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
2006-0224
Shetterly Park, 1007-1029 Riverside Drive
City of South Bend
Landmark or District Designation: Riverside Drive Local Historic District
Rating:
Defining Landscape Feature
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE/HISTORIC CONTEXT: Shetterly Park is an element of the
Riverside Drive District that sets it apart from other Local Historic Districts and provides a natural green
space enclosure along Riverside Drive that serves as buffer from urban noise. It serves as a tie to the St.
Joseph River by providing usable space close to the water and a visual link to the West North Shore Local
Historic District.
APPLICATION ITEMS: This project is an emergency repair to an existing Combined Sewer Outfall (CSO)
that is part of the City of South Bend Sanitary Sewer System. This is also considered an emergency
project by the DNR and by IDEM.
The CSO pipeline runs parallel to the northwest property.line of 1012 Riverside Drive in Shetterly Park.
In order to repair the pipeline and install odor abatement equipment it will be necessary to create a
permanent access ramp along the slope of Shetterly Park beginning northwest of the CSO pipeline and
traveling at a 20% grade eastward toward a landing area (also permanent) near the location of the CSO
pipeline. To accommodate the 20% grade a larger swath of the slope will need excavated to accommodate
the machinery. (See Exhibit 1) An adjoining access ramp will be constructed along the western
shoreline of the St. Joseph River. When the project is completed the access ramp along the western
shoreline will be re -graded and planted to reclaim the shoreline and provide for erosion control. The area
surrounding the pipe area will also be treated for erosion control with the use of riprap, silt fence, etc.
The swath along the slope will be replanted with seedlings and saplings and ground cover. The permanent
access ramp and landing area will be naturalized with plantings and natural materials that will maintain by
the CSO crew. (See Exhibit 2) Grass in Shetterly Park will be re -seeded.
Jason Durr, Assistant City Engineer with Department of Public Works and Steve Ernst, Civil Engineer
with Christopher B. Burke Engineering are working with City Forester, Brent Thompson concerning the
removal and replanting of trees and ground cover in Shetterly Park. Brent Thompson is also going to
present a Planting Plan for this project at the HPC meeting.
STANDARDS FOR RIVERSIDE DRIVE: I. ENVIORNMENT, Required: Distinctive existing
features such as parks ... shall be retained. New plant materials... shall be compatible with the character of
the neighborhood....Recommended: ...If erosion control efforts become necessary to preserve the
riverbank, they should involve processes and materials consistent with the natural beauty of the bank.
Large deep-rooted trees and shrubs as well as fast spreading ground cover should be used when planting
for erosion control. As much natural vegetation as possible should be preserved.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval. The remedies proposed for the repair of the brick
CSO and its maintenance along with its solutions to air and water pollution are sensitive to the current and
future landscaping of Shetterly Park and the Riverside Drive District. -
�.Acm
1 I
- gong �M'1
�w.waw.7ar Oww�1nr01H 1
NN
r!/7♦r�1010wir 6.701]1 �- `\ 1 \
1 1
\ \.f a�.\ \
mwn
f �
� � \ teYwYa+narwsw►
'\ \ \
� Q �\• NOTE: -
- Mi•MYMOYOIq Oww W a
WwC M L • itl4•rrwl]!t.
wwera wrllarwMwYlrw•It iArdiMr•arY.rre.N awl
haw NrMlwWwttwlYl`L ,..... __.,_ -
tlrlwMbwia.. i`- - ' dr Yq.w•e,.waYYrsef,„ i+sY,Y
Nrwa 11r„aa,lm, awM rw•wt
( rw.Cww.7r.ww.•,trw Yw.. �.
..r +�...- e-�,.._ .�hr.7LG,�__.�G�L.�v ...__`"`1°''i���i :.MP��r• �.�.os�at� ...
F--��-1 C������ rmoo vr�.,�e•,iv
1•D•TR ml
►b• BY DATE REVISION I DATE 12603 PLANS PREPARED BY: PLANS PREPARED FOR: CSO#6 Outfall Stabilization ^�"005701
DRAWNAO�E CHRISTOPHER B. BURKE ENG. _ -
CHKD UMBIA PLACE, STE 110 CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANAa�7 a ar: 77
APRVD BEND. IN 46601 DEPARTMENT OF PUBUC W� SHEET TITLE
2 AIF4 - 1316 COUNTKCnY BUILDING baa Grading
GR-1
1:10 �E (574) 282-8001 FAX: (574) 282-8003 SOUTH BEND, IN 46601
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
OF SOUTH BEND & SAINT JOSEPH COUNTY
February 27, 2006
County -City Building, South Bend
County Commissioners Conference Room, 7th Floor
Members Present: Lynn Patrick [President], Todd Zeiger [Vice -President], Mary Jane Chase [Secretary],
Timothy Klusczinski [Treasurer], Catherine Hostetler
Members Absent: Martha Choitz, Joann Sporleder, Jerry Ujdak, Diane Wrobel-Illes
Staff Present: Catherine Hostetler [Director], Julie Schutte [Assistant Director]
Staff Absent: Shawn Peterson [Legal Counsel]
Also Present: Peter Bauer, Mary Ellen O'Connell
I. CALL TO ORDER, ROLL CALL: Lynn Patrick called the meeting to order at 7:32 pm.
II. PUBLIC HEARING
A. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS
1. 2006-0118B'129 West North Shore
Catherine Hostetler: The homeowners, Peter Bauer and Mary Ellen O'Connell, are present. The
house is located in the West North Shore District and is rated significant. This Freyermuth and
Maurer designed Neo -Classical house was built in 1905 for Eugene Harper Miller. Mr. Harper was
the President of the American Trust from 1920 until 1932. He then became Treasurer of the Home
Improvement Company in 1932. Peter Bauer and Mary Ellen O'Connell purchased the home in
August 2005.
The owners received staff approval to remove the non-contributing and deteriorating 1975 brick wall
on the west and east sides of the back yard and to restore the north brick wall. They wish to enclose
the back yard along the east, west and south (side yard) with a black aluminum flat top or spear -point
fence.
The Standards for the West North Shore Local Historic District are silent on the use of fencing in the
back or side yards (with the exception of the side yards in Lots 12 and 12B) of the homes located in
the District and of back yards in general. Staff recommends approval and prefers the spear -point
fence.
Peter Bauer noted that he had done an informal survey of the district and there are a few fences
visible from North Shore: one chain link fence, two wooden fences, and a long spear -point wrought -
iron fence. Approximately three feet would be visible from West North Shore.
Mary Jane Chase asked what the feelings of the neighbors were.
Mary Ellen O'Connell stated that they had spoken to their immediate neighbors and that the Brodens
and the [Favors?] are very happy with the project.
Todd Zeiger: I'll make a motion to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness 2006-0118B as
submitted. Timothy Klusczinski seconded the motion, and it passed 5-0, all in favor.
B. LANDMARKS (There were none heard.)
C. NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATIONS (There were none heard.)
III. REGULAR BUSINESS
A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. January 23, 2006
Catherine Hostetler: I would like to make the suggestion that on page 26 that we amend it to clarify,
basically. There is some ambiguity with the minutes about what was in the Preservation Plan vis-a-
vis the standards for landmarks, and I would like to clarify that in addition to my comments recorded
in the proposed minutes that I found the C of A application for 2300 Portage independently violates
both the B standards and the historic preservation plan standards for demolition of a landmark.
And I know that other people were using the same language that I was using, Mary Jane used it, Lynn
and also Tim used it, and also with your comments if you would like you to incorporate this as well
so there won't be any problems or any question as to which standards we were referring to.
Timothy Klusczinski noted another correction was needed on page 28 under approval of minutes for
November 21, 2005. The vote should be corrected to 6-0-1 as Tim abstained from the motion to
approve those minutes.
Mary Jane Chase: Then, I move that we accept the changes from Catherine and myself, from Lynn
and Tim. Todd Zeiger seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved.
B. TREASURER'S REPORT
Timothy Klusczinski formally submitted the treasurer's report (the budget location for the
department) to the Commission.
C. COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. President's Report
Lynn Patrick reported that the Commission had a well -attended retreat. There was much discussion
on the Commission's goals for the future though the specific implementation of the goals will need
further discussion. Lynn also noted that there was a meeting with neighbors from Edgewater Place
about 513 River Avenue's fence issue. At the meeting the prior decisions of the Commission were
reviewed and its decision to take no action was again emphasized.
2. Landmark Committee Report
Todd Zeiger reported that he and Catherine had met with the Planning Department and the South
Gateway Association on the Burke Building, 1019 S. Michigan. As a point of information,
Community Development/South Gateway may come to the Commission with an application, possibly
to demolish the building.
D. STAFF REPORTS
1. C of A Approvals; Correspondence
Catherine Hostetler reported that the staff had approved a C of A for 129 West North Shore, which
was included in the packets. Catherine noted that the office had received several pieces of
correspondence including: a note from Glory -June Grief that the National Register nomination for the
WPA river wall had passed the state review board; a letter from John Strauss, of the South Bend
School Corporation, noting that the bids for the demolition of Lincoln School will be determined on
March 6th and the Commission can then negotiate with the demolition contractor/s; correspondence
from Alderwoods via May Oberfell Lorber that Alderwoods has decided to proceed with an appeal;
and thank -you notes from the East Wayne Street liaisons to Catherine for her presentation on the C of
A process. -
2. Director's Report (included in the HPC meeting binder)
Catherine passed out a listing of meetings and events the staff had attended to reflect the progress of
the office and announced that the Notre Dame School of Architecture is having a lecture on ancient
Greek architecture.
3. Assistant Director's Report: Julie Schutte had nothing new to report.
4. Legal: There was no legal report as Shawn was absent due to illness.
IV. OLD BUSINESS
1. LWW [sic] and Taylor's Field printed and delivered; Chapin Park Final Draft at Printers.
Julie Schutte reported that the Lincolnway East and TayIor's Field guideline books had arrived from
the printer and shall be delivered soon. A final proof for Chapin Park should arrive by the end of the
week with the delivery occurring by the middle of March.
IV. NEW BUSINESS
1. Southhold Awards Committee Meeting
The Committee meeting was seffor Thursday, March 2"d at 5 pm in the Commission offices.
2. Marquette School
The Commission discussed the future of Marquette School and the possibility of placing it under
interim protection. The building's connection to the Public Works Administration (PWA) was
highlighted. It was also noted that the South Bend School Board may be voting on a bundle of
projects for a new bond issue, which would include the bond for the destruction of Marquette School.
Lynn Patrick: I move to place interim protection to Marquette School with the appropriate measures
to be followed. Timothy Klusczinski seconded the motion. There was some discussion about what
would be included in the letter and how it would be mailed to the School Corporation at the
appropriate time. The motion passed unanimously, 5-0.
V. HEARING OF VISITORS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mary Jane Chase reported on the potential changes Gov. Daniels' plan to privatize food production for
welfare and shelter programs might have on South Bend and the South Gateway area. She also submitted
a name for the Commission's Advisory Board.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
Lynn Patrick moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:30 pm. Catherine Hostetler seconded the motion and all
were thrilled to end a meeting before 9. p.m.
Location Budget as of 02-28-2006
Unencumbered
Unexpended
Note: Includes transactions after the last posted date of 12-31-2005.
BalancelPercent
Balance/Percent
Fund 001 County General for 01-01-2006 thru 02-28-2006
25,384.60
25,384.60
Loc 037 Historic Preservation
84.62
84.62
Account
30,503.84
30,503.84
Object Description
Appropriation
Encumbrance
11075 Deputy Director
30,000.00
0.00
000 General GOVT.
84.62
184.62
11309 Historic Preservation Admin.
36,050.00
0.00
000 General GoVT.
73.01
86.90
10000 Totals •"••'••••'••'•'•","•,"«,•"`«•"""„""•
66,050.00
0.00
21030 Office Supplies
1,750.00
243.14
000 General GovT.
700.00
700.00
22010 Gas Oil & Lubricants
1,000.00
0.00
000 General GovT.
2,948.69
3,191.83
22120 Garage & Motor Supplies
700.00
0.00
000 General GOVT.
28,371.14
47,119.14
20000 Totals ,•""„"„"•"'•"""•"•`•"""""""'
3,450.00
243.14
31070 Other Contractual Services
51,367.00
18,748.00
000 General GovT.
100.00
100.00
32020 Travel
500.00
0.00
000 General GovT.
100.00
100.00
32050 Instruction & Training
1,000.00
0.00
000 General GovT.
96.74
96.74
32053 Public Relations
3,070.00
0.00
000 General GovT.
100.00
100.00
32200 Telephone
160.00
0.00
000 General GOVT.
67.93
67.93
32350 Postage
2,160.00
0.00
000 General GoVT.
90.80
90.80
33010 Publication Of Legal Notices
500.00
0.00
000 General GovT.
User ID KSOBECKI
03/01/200610:59 AM
Saint Joseph County
Page 79
Unencumbered
Unexpended
Expenditure
BalancelPercent
Balance/Percent
4,615.40
25,384.60
25,384.60
84.62
84.62
5,546.16
30,503.84
30,503.84
84.62
84.62
10,161.56
55,888.44
55,888.44
84.62
184.62
229.19
1,277.67
1,520.81
73.01
86.90
28.98
971.02
971.02
97.10
97.10
0.00
700.00
700.00
100.00
100.00
258.17
2,948.69
3,191.83
85.47
92.52
4,247.86
28,371.14
47,119.14
55.23
91.73
0.00
500.00
500.00
100.00
100.00
0.00
1,000.00
1,000.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
2,970.00
2,970.00
96.74
96.74
0.00
160.00
160.00
100.00
100.00
692.67
1,467.33
1,467.33
67.93
67.93
46.01
453.99
453.99
90.80
90.80
Page 79
Location Budget as of 02-28-2006
Note: Includes transactions after the last posted date of 12-31-2005.
Fund 001 County General for 01-01-2006 thru 02-28-2006
Loc 037 Historic Preservation
Account
Object Description
33100 Printing
000
General GodT.
37100
Auto Lease
000
General GodT.
39010
Dues & Subscription
000
General GovT.
39600
Refunds, Awards & Indemnities
000
General GovT.
39750
Data Processing
000
General GoVT.
30000
Totals ,,,,,..,.„ ...................„,,,.,,,,.,..,.
44250
Office Machines
000
General GovT.
40000
Totals ..............................................
Location Totals .................................................
Investment Accounts
Transfer Accounts
Saint Joseph County
User ID KSOBECKI 03/01/200610:59 AM Page 80
Unencumbered
Unexpended
Appropriation
Encumbrance
Expenditure
Balance/Percent
Balance/Percent
8,528.00
5,528.00
92.40
2,907.60
8,435.60
34.09
98.92
500.00
0.00
0.00
500.00
500.00
100.00
100.00
750.00
0.00
10.00
740.00
740.00
98.67
98.67
0.00
0.00
3,034.00
(3,034.00)
(3,034.00)
0.00
0.00
1,500.00
0.00
0.00
1,500.00
1,500.00
100.00
100.00
70,035.00
24,276.00
8,222.94
37,536.06
61,812.06
53.60
88.26
800.00
0.00
0.00
800.00
800.00
100.00
100.00
800.00
0.00
0.00
800.00
800.00
100.00
100.00
140,335.00
24,519.14
18,642.67
97,173.19
121,692.33
69.24
86.72
0.00
0.00
18,642.67
Saint Joseph County
User ID KSOBECKI 03/01/200610:59 AM Page 80
Directors Report March 2006
This month has been devoted to the Southold Awards Breakfast and securing a speaker
for the event. The staff has also been involved in meetings with the Department of
Public Works concerning the work in Leeper Park and Shetterly Park. We have been
assisting the new owners of Local Landmark 1114 Lincolnway West that was partially
destroyed by fire. I have contacted the Rykos family and Benjamin family for
photographs to help in the restoration. We have provided information and support for
the preservation of Marquette School and the RiverView Cemetery Gatehouse to
neighborhood groups. I have followed up with Andy Laurent on the article on the
former Muessel Brewery and with Pam Myers on the Burke Building. The office also
provided support for Granger Paths' fundraiser 5k Run/Walk on May 21 by posting the
notices in the County City Building. HPC is participating in the County's evaluation of
job/compensation levels with Waggoner, Irwin, Scheele & Associates. The staff also has
been performing the 106 Review for the Department of Justice on the First Bank
Building that is on the National Register. The Prosecutor's Office hopes to use part of
the building for their Family Justice Center.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
DETROIT DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
BOX 1027
DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48231-1027
IN REPLY REFER TO: SEP 2 U z000
Engineering & Construction Division
Environmental Analysis Branch
TO ALL INTERESTED AGENCIES, PUBLIC GROUPS, AND CITIZENS
The enclosed Environmental Assessment (EA) is provided for your review. The EA
addresses the potential environmental impacts associated with constructing riverbank protection
along three eroding sites on the St. Joseph River in South Bend, Indiana. Emergency riverbank
protection is authorized by Section 14 of the Federal Flood Control Act of 1946, as amended.
The riverbank areas to be protected include the east shore of Leeper Park Island and,
about V2 -mile downstream, a reach along North Shore Drive and along a stormwater outfall on
the opposite bank. Erosion poses a threat to municipal wells on Leeper Park Island, to North
Shore Drive, and to several outfalls and utility lines. The proposed action is to protect all three
sites with riprap stone. Upper riverbank trees at the North Shore Drive site would be preserved
by using a bio -engineered erosion control turf mat instead of riprap along the upper bank.
The EA includes a Section 404(b)(1) Evaluation, pursuant to the Clean Water Act, for
fill placement into the waters of the United States as part of the riverbank protection project.
Any person who has an interest that may be affected by the proposed in -water placement of fill
material may request a public hearing. The request must be submitted in writing within the
comment period of.this notice (as described below) and must clearly set forth the interest that
may be affected and the manner in which the interest may be affected by this activity.
Any comments on this proposed riverbank protection project should be made within
thirty (30) days from the date of this notice; otherwise it will be assumed you have no
comment. Please direct your comments to the U.S. Army Engineer District, Detroit; ATTN:
CELRE-ET-EC-E (Les E. Weigum); P.O. Box 1027; Detroit, Michigan 48231-1027
Following the comment period and a review of the comments received, the District
Engineer will make a final decision regarding the necessity of preparing an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed emergency riverbank protection project. Based on the
conclusions of this EA, it appears that preparation of an EIS would not be required.
Sincerely,
li / 1
e 1 Aehring, P.E.
Chief, Engineering &
Construction Division
Enclosure
CSO 66 SITE
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
EMERGENCY RIVERBANK PROTECTION
ST. JOSEPH RIVER
SOUTH BEND, INDIANA
'NORTH SNORE DRIVE SITE
LEEPER PARK ISLAND SITE
- Septcmbcr 2000
U.S. Armv Engineer District, Detroit
Carps of Engineers, CET RE -ET -EC -E
I _1-7
ux i . l
Dctroit. Michigan 48231-1027
313-226-672
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
EMERGENCY RIVERBANK PROTECTION
ST. JOSEPH RIVER
SOUTH BEND, INDIANA
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Proposed and Alternative Actions...................................................................................... 3
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmemal Consequences .................................................
4.0 Preliminary Agency. Review............................................................................................... 9
5.0 Major Findings and Conclusions................:..................................................................... 12
6.0 Public Review.................................................................................................................... 13
Attachments
A. Figures............................................................................................................................ A-1
B. Correspondence............................................................................................................... B-1
C. Section 404 (b)(1) Evaluation......................................................................................•.. C-1
D. Preliminary Finding of No Significant Impact................................................................ D-1
I
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
EMERGENCY RIVERBANK PROTECTION
ST. JOSEPH RIVER
SOUTH BEND, INDIANA
Abstract
The U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Detroit District, proposes riverbank protection at
three sites along the St. Joseph River within the City of South Bend, Indiana. The sites
include the east shore of Leeper Park Island and, about '/2 -mile downstream, a reach along
North Shore Drive and a stonnwater outfall on the opposite bank. Severe erosion
threatens public facilities at these three sites. The proposed action is to protect all three
sites with riprap stone. Upper riverbank trees at the North Shore Drive site would be
preserved by using a bio -engineered erosion control turf mat instead of riprap along the
upper bank. At Leeper Park, parts of a stone wall destroyed by erosion would be rebuilt.
Alternative protection methods and the No Action alternative also are considered.
Environmental review of the proposed riverbank protection project indicates that it would
not result in significant adverse environmental effects. Nor would it be expected to result
in any significant cumulative or long-term adverse environmental effects. Adverse effects
would be minor, including short-term noise and air emissions from equipment operation,
temporary local traffic diversions, temporary turbidity from construction, localized
displacement of fish and wildlife, localized clearing of vegetation, and destruction of
bottom -dwelling organisms in the immediate work area. The proposed riverbank
protection would protect against erosion undermining public facilities and would result in
a reduction of erosion -induced turbidity and sedimentation. Also the riprap stone would
provide in -water aquatic habitat along the toe of the slope and upland small mammal
habitat.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit District, proposes to construct riverbank
protection at three sites along the St. Joseph River in the City of South Bend, Indiana (Figure 1,
Attachment A, Page A-1). The City of South Bend is in north -central Indiana, about five miles
south from the Michigan border. The St. Joseph River flows approximately 8%z miles through
South Bend, then about 35 miles farther to Lake Michigan in southwest Michigan. This
riverbank protection proposal -is in response to a request by the City of South Bend for an
emergency riverbank and riverbank protection investigation under Section 14 of the Flood
Control Act of 1946.
1.2 The Proicct Sites: The sites include the cast shore of Leeper Park Island (Figure 2,
Attaci ment A; Page A-2) and; about'2-mile downstream, a reach along North Shore Drive and
along a stormwater outfall on the opposite bank (Figure 3, Attachment A, Page A-3). The
-I-
stormwater outfall formerly functioned as a combined sewer outfall (CSO) and thus is
designated CSO#6. The St. Joseph River is approximately 250 feet wide in the project area.
1.3 Leeper Park Island is adjacent to Riverside Drive, between Michigan Street (Indiana Route
3) 1) and East Bartlett Street. The island is owned by the City of South Bend and is part of
Leeper Park. The park is maintained as lawn n with many mature trees and a variety of shrubs.
Two public water supply wells on the island provide drinking water for the City of South Bend.
A stone wall approximately 5 feet high and 1,400 feet long surrounds the island providing some
erosion protection. The stone wall includes staircases that descend from the park lawn down to
the river. Erosion along the eastern island shore, which extends approximately 720 feet, has
undermined the wall. This undermining has resulted in the destruction of three sections of
wall' (in two locations) totaling about 250 feet in length. Loss of the wall in these locations has
resulted in severe soil erosion farther upland.
1.4 The North Shore Drive site extends approximately 1,500 feet beginning about 600 feet
downstream (northwest) of Lafayette Boulevard and ending about 200 feet downstream of
PaIkovash Avenue. The riverbank along North Shore Drive is privately owned in association
with adjacent residential properties. The bank in this reach is steep, approaching 1 vertical on l
horizontal (45°) in some locations. Approximately 51 large trees (greater then 6" stem
diameter) are growing along this riverbank. Many of these trees along the lower bank are
subject to erosion and undermining. Some areas of the bank, barren of trees, are covered with
broken concrete rubble from previous bank stabilization efforts. Part of the bank is eroded to
the back of the curb along North Shore Drive, which parallels the riverbank along this site. The
erosion also jeopardizes two drainage outfalls and several utility lines at this site.
1.5 The CSO site is across the river from the North Shore Drive site at the intersection of
Leland Avenue and Riverside Drive. This site is part of Shetterley Park, which is owned by the
City of South Bend. The eroding riverbank extends about 100 feet centered around a retired
30 -inch diameter CSO that currently is serving as a stormwater overflow. The riverbank is
approximately 35 feet high, slopes up to about lvertical to 2 horizontal (27), and is wooded.
Erosion along this reach threatens the entire bank. The outfall already is being undermined.
1.6 Pur_nose and Need for the Proposed Action: The purpose of this project is to provide a
suitable means of shore protection against erosion at the three sites to protect public facilities
from being undermined and destroyed. This is needed to counteract the effects of high river
flow velocities scouring the bank toe during flood events, which in conjunction with the silty
sands and sandy silts composing the riverbanks has resulted in significant erosion along the
project reaches.
r_. .. i. _ r �.__.:._.._.i _._n �_:-. A-- -- :�_ r.t__. •-t_:-.i ._ ... .._. 1.:..._.1 t.... a,.v..,. .J 4'P..... c„tt, ,,�
i n wui tai �«iivii Gi u�au Vy �u "vvdu� uiuii8 iiia wCit �iui ui ui� i�tnuu, iti uS U V al uu,u, vui U . rt,.,u isa..: ... t...,.
study because it was determined to be caused by surface erosion and therefore is not covered by the Section 14
authority.
-2-
1.7 Proiect Authoritv: The proposed action is authorized by Section 14 of the Federal Flood
Control Act of 1946 (Public Law 79-526), as amended. This Act authorizes Federal
expenditures to prevent flood or erosion damages to endangered roads and highways, highway
bridge approaches, public works, and non-profit public facilities, by the construction or repair
of emergency riverbank and bank protection works.
2.0 PROPOSED AND ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
2.1 The proposed action is to protect all three sites with riprap stone. At Leeper Island Park
approximately 250 feet of failed wall sections within the protection reach would be
reconstructed to maintain the aesthetic continuity of the site. The riprap would be placed
against the wall to an elevation of approximately 668, to prevent undermining and rotation of
the wall and would extend down the bank into the river. The level of flood protection at Leeper
Island Park coincides with the top of the wall (approximately 671 feet), which is about one foot
lower than the two-year flood occurrence elevation (approximately 672 feet). _
2.2 Protection for the North Shore Drive and CSO sites would be provided to the 50 -year
recurrence flood elevation (approximately 675 feet). Upper riverbank trees at the -North Shore
Drive site would be preserved by using a bio -engineered erosion control turf mat instead of
riprap above the two-year flood occurrence elevation (approximately 670 feet). Over time,
aesthetics and wildlife habitat will improve within the turf mat area by natural establishment of
native shrubs and other vegetation. This soft -engineered bank protection has a lower cost than
riprap, but is not as durable and therefore cannot be used on the lower riverbank.
2.3 Riprap was selected because of its lower overall cost compared to other bank protection
methods, such as articulated (interlocking) concrete blocks, gabions (stone -filled wire cages),
and mechanically stabilized embankment walls (such as decorative landscape blocks
mechanically anchored into the bank). Another alternative, considered for North Shore Drive,
was a sheet pile wall at the toe of the riprap slope to reduce excavation and backfill quantities,
but this alternative would have been more costly, would be less aesthetically appealing than .
riprap, and :would not provide aquatic habitat. The alternative of No Federal Action also was
considered, but was not selected because the erosion ultimately would destroy several .
stormwater outfalls and.utility lines, would undermine North Shore Drive, and eventually cause
disruption and damage to the municipal water intakes on Leeper Park Island.
2.4 The bank protection was designed with a steep slope (but not to exceed the existing slope)
to minimize riprap surface area, cut and fill volumes, and encroachment into the river channel.
At Leeper Park the riprap would be finished to a 1 vertical to 3 horizontal slope (about 18.5")
with a geo-textile filter under the riprap (Figures 4 and 5, Attachment A, Pages A-4 and A-5).
At the North Shore and CSO sites the riprap would be finished to a 1 vertical on 2 horizontal
slope (about G") W lil a 11.5 )40Ut tii:ri riprap layer over a g sued gravel r,. cr (Figures 6
through 8, Attachment A, Pages A-6 through A-8). The gravel filter layer is required for
steeper slopes, whereas geo-textile filter is suitable for the gentler slope at the Leeper Park.
-3-
The filter layer provides separation of the riprap from the underlying soil, thereby preventing
migration of fine soil particles through the voids in the riprap and permitting relief of
hydrostatic pressure. Above the waterline, the filter also prevents surface water from eroding
beneath the riprap.
2.5 Descrintion of Proposed Action: Construction of the riprap slopes would require
vegetation removal and some grading and fill activity to ensure a uniform, stable finished slope.
The contractor would be required to minimize the number of trees removed and to protect all
trees outside the immediate work area. No trees would be removed from the Leeper Park site.
All trees within the riprap zone at the CSO and North Shore sites must be removed. Along the
upper bank of the North Shore site in the bio -engineered erosion control zone, only trees less
than six inches in stem diameter at breast height' would be removed. The roots of removed
trees would be grubbed out of the ground.
2.6 Site preparation also includes (all three sites combined) excavation of approximately 2600
cubic yards (cy) of existing material, about 1,100 cy of which would be from below the water
line. Approximately 1,200 cy of backfill would be placed into the riverbariks of the three sites,
about 500 cy of which would be below the water line, in preparing the slope for the bank
protection. Bank protection, both in -water and above the water line, includes 1,800 tons of
gravel filter stone and 5,900 tons of riprap stone.
2.7 The fill beneath the riprap layer would consist of well -compacted granular material with
good drainage characteristics—likely a compacted silty sand, or medium -fine sand soil. Coarse
material such as sandy gravel, crushed gravel, and crushed concrete is more desirable for
backfill below the water line because it requires less compaction to attain the required density.
Once the slopes are cut and backfilled the respective filter layer (gravel or geo-textile) would be
placed in preparation of placing the riprap protection.
2.8 The contractor must protect the city water intakes and must control sediment transport into
the river during construction. Construction may be from on land or from the river. Land-based
access must be achieved with minimal disruption of trees and other habitat that is to remain in
place. A maximum load limit will be imposed on construction equipment along the upper bank
at the North Shore Drive site until bank protection is in place because the existing slope already
is considered overstressed.
2.9 Water-based construction access may be by floating plant or, if water levels are too low, by
rubber -tired equipment in the riverbed. In -water access to the North Shore and CSO sites
would likely be along the riverbed from Leeper Park. Any equipment operation or travel on the
riverbed outside the excavation area shall be limited to a single path to limit the area directly
disturbed. Riverbed travel shall be limited to that necessary for construction.
2 Trees with a stem diameter at breast height (DBH) of six inches or greater. The DBH is measured 4.5 feet
above ground on the uphill side of the tree.
-4-
2. 10 Approximately 150 to 200 feet of Parkovash Avenue and/or Iroquois Street, where they
meet North Side Drive, may be used by the contractor for temporary storage areas.
Additionally, the south side of North Side Drive may be used for construction access. The
contractor would be required to maintain vehicle access for residents of North Side Drive at all
times. The contractor also will be required to provide equipment access to Leeper Park Island
since the existing bridge is suitable only for light duty use.
2.11 Miscellaneous Proiect Details: The proposed constriction of bank protection at three
sites along the St. Joseph River, South Bend, Indiana, may require construction of one or more
temporary structures, temporary placement of clean construction material, site access, or
temporary work and storage instead of, or in addition to, those noted above. All temporary
facilities would be at USACE-approved locations (upland or in -water), outside of any wetlands,
areas known to contain Federal or state protected species or their critical habitat, or properties
listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places or state -listed
properties.
2.12 The type and location of temporary structures and/or construction aids cannot be
determined at this time, since they are incidental to the work being performed. Examples
include turnarounds, work and storage areas, access ramps, and office facilities. Such
structures would include appropriate precautionary measures to prevent erosion and
sedimentation or other undesirable environmental impacts. Temporary facilities would be
within project boundaries or rights-of-way and would be removed when no longer needed, and
the sites restored upon project completion.
2.13 Some variation from the project as described may occur with respect to sequence of
activities, method of operation, or design details as a result of unanticipated design
improvements, site conditions, or cost-saving measures. Any variations that would result in.
significant changes to either the overall project design or environmental impact would be
further evaluated under the National Environmental Policy Act.
2.14 Future, in-kind, in-place maintenance and repair actions may be conducted as necessary to
prevent significant deterioration of the'structures over time.
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEOUENCES
3.1 Environmental review of the proposed riverbank protection project indicates that it would
not result in significant adverse environmental effects. Nor would it be expected to result in
any significant cumulative or long-term adverse environmental effects. Adverse effects would
be minor, including short-term noise and air emissions from equipment operation, temporary
traffic r dit F ctin localized displacement of fish
local iraffc di'verS10nS, tcmpo�ar'y �Lirbiui:y Dili construction, lieu ��. .
and wildlife, localized clearing of vegetation, and destruction of bottom -dwelling organisins in
the immediate work area. The proposed riverbank protection would protect against erosion
- 5 -
undermining public facilities and would result in a reduction of erosion -induced turbidity and
sedimentation. Also the riprap stone would provide in -water aquatic habitat along the toe of the
slope and upland small mammal habitat.
3.2 Fish and Aquatic Habitat: The St. Joseph River is about 250 feet wide in the project
vicinity. The river provides a variety of habitat for fish, benthos (bottom dwelling organisms),
and other aquatic macro -invertebrates. Existing aquatic habitat along the North Shore Drive
site includes areas of broken concrete bank protection interspersed with areas of overhanging
vegetation. While this may provide good aquatic habitat, much of it is being eroded. The trees
overhanging the river provide good fish cover, but eventually will be undermined and lost.
3.3 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service noted the following fish species occur in this part of the
St. Joseph River: steelhead trout, coho and chinook salmon, smallmouth bass, bluegill, walleye,
shorthead and golden redhorse, pumpkinseed and green sunfish, carp, golden, spottail and
spotfin shiner, spotted, white and northern hog sucker, quillback carpsucker, logperch, and
longnose gar (correspondence, February 24, 2000, Attachment B, Page B-1). Steelhead are the
major anadromous fist: species that pass through the project area from Lake Michigan.
Freshwater mussels may be present, although there are no known mussel beds in the project
area. Numerous other aquatic invertebrates likely are present.
3.4 Construction of the riprap riverbank protection at all three sites would destroy existing
river bottom habitat within the construction area, but would provide a more stable habitat of
riprap stone. The in -water part of the riprap would be colonized by macro -invertebrates from
adjacent areas of the river, would provide feeding and/or spawning habitat for fish, and may
also attract birds which would feed on fish attracted to the area. Fish and other mobile
organisms would avoid the areas during construction. Vegetation overhanging the river would
be lost during construction, rather than to erosion. To prevent disruption of the spring fish
spawning, the construction contractor would be required to avoid turbidity generating activities
during the spring spawning run.
3.5 Wildlife Habitat: The three sites provide habitat for wildlife species typically found in
urban environments ---small mammals such as squirrel, rabbit, muskrat, etc. as well as a variety
of songbirds and ducks, and Canada geese. Leeper Park Island is mainly mowed lawn with
scattered trees, predominantly eastern cottonwood. At the North Shore Drive and CSO sites,
habitat mainly consists of steep, vegetated banks, with many mature trees. Predominant trees
along these riverbanks are maple, elm, sycamore, and cottonwood.
3.6 No trees would be removed from the Leeper Park site. All trees within the area to be
protected with riprap at both the CSO and North Shore sites would be removed. Many of these
trees, if not removed, ultimately would succumb to erosion. Approximately 2 large trees
(6 -inch or greater diameter at breast height) at the CSO site and 25 large trees (four ofwhich
are dead) ai the Nortin Shore Drive site wouiu be renwved. i he riprap slope woulu proviue
habitat for small mammals. Within the bio -engineered erosion control turf mat.protection,
along the upper bank at the North Shore Drive site, all large trees would remain. After
-6-
construction approximately 30 large trees would remain along the North Shore Drive protection
site, approximately 18 of which would be preserved through use of the bio -engineered erosion
control turf instead of riprap. Over time natural vegetation will develop within the erosion
control turf area resulting in improved wildlife habitat and aesthetics.
3.7 Threatened and Endangered Species. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service all
three sites are within the range of the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), which is Federally listed as
endangered, and the bald eagle (Haliaectus leucoconlialus), which is Federally listed as
threatened (correspondence, February 24, 2000, Attachment B; Page B-1). They note that
habitat for these species is not present at any of the bank protection sites. Therefore, the
riverbank protection projects are not likely to impact any Federally listed species.
3.8 Water Oualitv: No significant adverse water quality effects are expected. The St. Joseph
River will be the receiving waterway of project runoff. The proposed action will not adversely
affect any municipal water supply sources, but actually will protect the municipal water wells
on Leeper Park Island. Stone and fill material to be placed along the eroding riverbanks would
be clean and would be obtained from active commercial sources. Sedimentation control
measures such as straw bales, barriers and/or silt fencing will be included around disturbed
upland areas to prevent soil runoff into the river. In -water project construction activities,
including excavation and riprap placement, would result in temporary sediment resuspension.
Water quality impacts would be localized, short duration, and similar to that occurring along
these riverbanks during high water flow events when erosion occurs. The riverbank protection
will reduce erosion -induced turbidity and sedimentation in this reach of the river. An
evaluation of the effects of placing fill in the waters of the United States, pursuant to Section
404 of the Clean Water Act, is included as Attachment C (Page C-1).
3.9 Air Oualitv: Construction air quality effects would be short term and minor, consisting
primarily of vehicle emissions. All equipment would be required to meet emission standards.
Emissions from the proposed construction activity are exempted as de minimis, and therefore
meet the General Conformity Criteria pursuant to Section 107 of the Clean Air Act, as
amended.
3.10 Recreation and Aesthetics: The St. Joseph River is used for many different forms of
recreation, including fishing and boating. The Leeper Island Park and CSO sites are located .
within public parks. Potential adverse project impacts to recreation would be temporary and
minor, including traffic congestion, noise, and visual aesthetic degradation. The reconstructed
wall at Leeper Park will improve aesthetics within the park. Construction activity will result in
temporary noise and aesthetic impacts to residents of nearby houses due to the presence and
operation of construction materials and equipment. Noise impacts would be reduced by
limiting construction noise to daytime hours.
3.11 Traffic: All materials and waste material hauled to and from the project sites would use
approved hauling routes and abide by local, state, and federal requirements. Because of the .
limited space available between the road and the river along North Shore Drive, and to prevent
-7-
further disruption of riverbank habitat, the ends of Parkovash Avenue and/or Iroquois Street
may be closed to provide the contractor with temporary work and storage areas. Additionally,
the contractor would need to operate equipment on North Shore Drive and likely would close
down the south side of the road. Throughout the period of work the contractor is required to
maintain an all-weather roadway throu_h or around the work area when work would otherwise
block an existing roadway. Traffic impacts would be temporary, comprised generally of
congestion and minor inconvenience.
3.12 Cultural Resources: All three bank protection sites were reviewed for the potential to
impact cultural resources. The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) lists include the
Samuel Leeper, Jr., House at 113 W. North Shore Drive. This house is on the opposite side of
the river from the proposed Leeper Island Park project and therefore would not be affected.
Leeper Park Island is surrounded by a 5 -foot -high (minimum) stone wall that was built as part
of a Works Progress Administration (WPA) effort in the 1930's. Significant parts of this wall
have collapsed and, in its current condition, the wall does not retain integrity as a cultural
resource and is not eligible for the NRNP.
3.13 The North Shore and CSO sites both have been disturbed by previous excavation.
While the Leeper Park Island construction site has not been significantly disturbed by prior
construction, it has been disturbed by erosion. Minimal excavation that may be required at the
Leeper Island Park site would not affect undisturbed areas, but would be limited to the
previously disturbed wall foundation area. Since undisturbed areas would not be affected,
unforeseen buried cultural resources at the three sites would not likely be affected by project
construction. As a precaution, contract specifications will designate that, if during construction
the contractor observes unusual items that might have historical, archeological, or cultural
value, the contractor shall protect those items and immediately report the find to the contracting
officer so that the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Historic Preservation
may be notified.
3.14 The above cultural resources review information and project alternatives were coordinated
with the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Historic Preservation and
Archaeology. A discussion of their comments is included in paragraphs 4.15 and 4.16 of the
following section.
3.15 Future Maintenance and Repair: In-kind, in-place maintenance and repair activities may
occur periodically following completion of the riverbank protection projects. The impacts of
maintenance would be similar to those expected for the entire project, but of significantly
smaller magnitude, since maintenance and repair activities would be of a smaller scale.
4.0 PRELIMINARY AGENCY REVIEW
4.1 The proposed riverbank erosion protection along the St. Joseph River in South Bend,
Indiana, has been coordinated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, the State of Indiana, and various Native American Indian tribes, groups, and
interested parties. Comments received are addressed below. .
4.2 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS): The FWS provided comments on the proposed
riverbank erosion protection project (See February 24, 2000, letters, Attachment B, Pages B-1,
B-4, and B-8). They noted that another erosion site on the west side of the Leeper Park Island
should be added to the bank protection project and that they prefer repairing the WPA wall so
that the riprap will not intrude on the overall outdoor experience of visitors to the park.
4.3 The proposed action includes repair of the WPA wall. The area of erosion on the west side
of the island was previously inspected but not included in the project because the damage is due
to surface erosion and, therefore, is outside the scope of work authorized under Section 14 of
the Federal Flood Control Act of 1946.
4.4 The FWS believes that the North Shore Drive site cannot be addressed by any single
protection alternative because of the variability of the on -the -ground situation. They suggest
that soil stability and degree of erosion should be determined along the entire length of the
slope, since erosive pressures are not uniform across the entire area. Then areas of varying
erosion potential could be individually addressed.
4.5 The selected alternative for the North Shore site, riprap protection, has been redesigned to
include a bio -engineered erosion control turf mat along the upper bank where the erosion
potential is lower. This alternative can be adjusted to varying slopes and tree populations and .
will blend well into the existing riverbank at each end of the reach. Evaluation of this
alternative at various cross-sections along the North Shore site shows it is suitable for the full
reach. Approximately 30 trees with 6 -inch and greater stem diameter would remain along the
North Shore Drive riverbank above the riprap. Approximately 18 of these trees would be saved
as a result of using the bio -engineered upper erosion control instead of additional riprap.
4.6 The FWS noted a delta in the river by the CSO protection site that appears to be pushing
some flows toward the North Shore Drive riverbank. They suggest that removal of the delta
and control of its source may relieve some of the erosive pressures against the north bank of the
river. Concern also was expressed by the FWS about the long-term viability of the proposed
bank protection at the North Shore site. They suggested modeling the river dynamics at and
upstream of the project reach to help develop a successful long-term bank protection solution.
4.7 Excavation of the delta is not authorized under Section 14 of the Federal Flood Control Act
of 1946. Regarding river dynamics, the proposed bank protection design was based on
available data for flow velocity and stages. Based on the relatively slow flow velocities,
additional modeling to define the erosion potential is not considered necessary. The selected
design alternative will result in bank protection that is much more comprehensive than that
which currently exists at the site. Most important, the stone toe blocks will more effectively
resist undermining of the slope protection than does the surficial stone currently at the site.
4.8 The FWS strongly recommends a project be developed that fits the river dynamics and also
saves as many riverbank trees as possible and that trees unavoidably lost be replaced. They
note the trees help reduce erosion, provide habitat and shelter for fish and other aquatic
organisms, and are valuable for aesthetics and reduction of air pollution and summer heat. Also
for the North Shore Drive site, the FWS suggest that, instead of the steel sheet pile or riprap,
lunker boxes and/or A jacks may be used at the base of the eroding slope to provide additional
fish and wildlife habitat.
4.9 As noted above, the alternative for North Shore Drive was revised to eliminate removal of
larger trees along the upper riverbank. Lower riverbank trees that would be removed from the
riprap zone are subject to erosive forces and, without the bank protection project, eventually
would be undermined and lost. Project authorization does not include funding for added
features beyond that necessary for basic. flood protection. Lunker boxes or A jacks could be
provided only at the expense of a non -Federal volunteer.
4.10 At the CSO site, FWS's main concern is the method for placing riprap, noting that land-
based construction likely would require clearing the bank vegetation, which would open up the
site to erosion; whereas equipment use in the river would disturb the bottom and increase
turbidity. They suggest that construction equipment could work off of the sandy deposit (delta)
in the river adjacent to the outfall. Additional information was requested for review as the
project planning progresses.
4.11 The plans and specifications for the project have been written to ensure minimal
disruption to the environment during construction. Construction may require access from the
riverbank and/or the river depending on the individual construction contractor and available
equipment. In water equipment operation would keep to areas of exposed sediments as much
as practicable to minimize turbidity and other impacts on aquatic habitat. The contract
specifications, however, will require minimization of the in -water area affected. Some
riverbank vegetation would be cleared, but only two larger trees (6 -inch or greater diameter)
would be removed from the CSO site. All exposed soils on the riverbank would be protected
from erosion until turf or other permanent erosion control is established. Over time natural
vegetation would fill in the open areas of the riverbank.
4.12 Finally, the FWS noted that the project area is within the range of the Indiana bat (My tis
sodalis), which is Federally listed as endangered, and the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucoconhalus),
which is Federally listed as threatened, but that there is no suitable habitat for either of these
species within the project areas.
4.13 The Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). Division of Fish and Wildlife:
The IDNR provided stated that formal approval from their agency will be required for
EDIE
construction in a floodway (Correspondence, June 9, 2000, Attachment B, Page B-11). They
reviewed their Natural Heritage Program data base and found that no species listed on state or
federal lists as threatened, endangered, or rare are reported to occur in the project vicinity. The
IDNR recommends the project include measures to minimize environmental and aesthetic
impacts, such as bioengineering techniques, native glacial stone or logs for bank stabilization,
and lunkers or other structures to enhance aquatic habitat. They said, "Do not use heavy
equipment in the channel," and requested inclusion of riverbank fishing access in the plans.
4.14 Approval for construction in the floodway would be obtained from the IDNR prior to
construction. The project is designed to minimize disruption to the environment. The North,
Shore Drive protection site has been modified to include a bio -engineered upper bank
protection, which will minimize the number of larger trees required to be removed. Project
funding, pursuant to Section 14 of the Federal Flood Control Act. of 1946, is specifically for
emergency streambank protection and does not allow for funding of amenities such as lunker
boxes or A jacks, unless the full added cost is supported by a not federal entity.
4.15 Some equipment operation in the riverbed will be necessary because of limited site access
and because of load limits on the upper slope at North Shore Drive due to slope instability. In --
water equipment operation will be limited as much as possible to within the area where the
riprap will be placed and preference would be given_ to smaller equipment where possible. Any
equipment operation or travel on the riverbed outside the excavation area shall be limited to a
single path to limit the area directly disturbed. Riverbed travel shall be limited to that
necessary for construction.
4.16 The IDNR. Division of Historic Preservation and ArchaeoloRv: The IDNR Division of
Historic Preservation and Archaeology provided comments on the proposed project pursuant to
the National Historic Preservation Act (Correspondence, February.21, 2000, Attachment B,
Page B-12). For all three proposed projects and sites, they concur with the Corps' findings that
there are no historic properties within the area of potential effects of the project. They request,
as specified in 36 C.F.R. 800.11 [d], that once complete, the documentation be made available to
the public and all interested parties. Additionally, they requested that if the project scope
changes or if artifacts or bones are discovered, that the work stop and their office be notified
within 2 days.
4.17 Cultural resource identification and evaluation efforts are discussed in this Environmental
Assessment, which will be made available federal, state, and local agencies and the general
public. Contract specifications will designate that, if during construction the contractor
observes unusual items that might have historical, archeological, or cultural value, the -
contractor shall protect those items and immediately report the find to the contracting officer so
that the IDNR Division of Historic Preservation may be notified.
4. i 8 The Indiana Departmetut of Envirotuniental >vianap-eiimit requested the Cops submit a
completed application packet for Section 401 water quality certification, including final
construction methods, materials, amount of excavation and/or fill, and any re -vegetation plans
(Correspondence, February 8, 2000, Attachment B, Page B-13). Application will be made and
Section 401 Water Quality Certification (or waiver thereof) received prior to a final decision
regarding this Environmental Assessment.
5.0 MAJOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
5.1 The proposed riverbank protection project, including the east shore of Leeper Park Island, a
section along North Shore Drive, and a combined sewer outfall (CSO) along the St. Joseph
River, South Bend, Indiana, has been reviewed pursuant to the following Acts and Executive
Orders: Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956; Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958; National
_Historic Preservation Act of 1966; National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; Clean Air Act
of 1970; Executive Order 11593, Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment,
May 1971; Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972; Endangered Species Act of 1973; Clean
Water Act of 1977; Executive Order 11988, Flood Plain Management, May 1977; and
Executive Order 11990, Wetland Protection, May 1977. The proposed riverbank protection
project has been found to be in compliance 4vilh these acts and executive orders for this phase
of the study.
5.2 The bank protection sites are located within the 100 -year floodplain; however, the project
would not encourage floodplain development, nor would it impact flood stages. The proposed
actions comply with the Federal Executive Order on Flood Plain Management (E.O. 11988)
because there is no practicable alternative to construction in the flood plain.
5.3 Pursuant to the Clean Water Act (CWA), a Section 404(b)(1) evaluation of the
environmental effects of the discharge of fill material into waters of the U.S. has been prepared
(Attachment C). The Section 404(b)(1) Evaluation concludes with the determination that "the
proposed action is in compliance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act." A Section 401
(CWA) water quality certification, or waiver thereof, would be obtained from the state prior to
signing a Statement of Findings/Finding of No Significant Impact for this Environmental
Assessment.
5.4 This Environmental Assessment has been prepared in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); the Council on Environmental Quality, Regulations for
Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR
Parts 1500-1508); and the Corps of Engineers, Policy and Procedure for Implementing NEPA
(33 CFR Part 230).
5.5 This Environmental Assessment concludes that 1) there are no significant cumulative or
long-term adverse environmental impacts associated with the riverbank protection project; 2)
the benefits outweigh the minor, temporary impacts that may result; and 3) they do not
constitute a major Federal action significantly atlecting the human environment_
-12-
6.0 PUBLIC REVIEW
6.1 This Environmental Assessment will be made available to the public for a 30 -day review
period. Following this period and a review of the comments received, a final determination
will be made by the District Engineer regarding the necessity of preparing an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed St. Joseph_ Riverbank protection project at South
Bend, Indiana.
6.2 Based on the conclusions of this Environmental Assessment, it appears that preparation of
an EIS will not be required. Therefore, a Preliminary Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) is included with this Assessment (Attachment D). If the District Engineer determines
that an EIS is not necessary, the Preliminary FONSI would be finalized.
ME
NORTH SHORE OR VE STTE
1LLJ* k C: 11 m
RAILROAD
ill v/ I
t t DIANA II \
AVh
Jo
,64
ger
I LEEPER PARK ISLAND srrE
CSO #6 SITE
0 100 250 500
Figure 1. South Bend, Indiana, Project Vicinity.
1""
Y
O
'l
Y
\ V
I AC 8 W.RC Al
. �Cll —T
67
I RIVE sib
PAR+�
676.4
WA
—,-LAN
V.,
Lj
Pocking
3: 7n)
9t
LF
"6 76 -3
L -----J..! P 1 11. . , C I i . WATER' TANK
x
MATCH SHEET 7 341,000
SCALE IN FEET
200 0 200 400 600 800
_i(lUre Z. Leeper island Park riverbank Protection Site Vicinity.
).j
D-91 ['I
1'.*)L'.-i Oy
( %;. V `e,\��[I�0(]-
R.. ri
4 13
Z t) rill
. . ,•
0 4679.0 C -1t .0 ",3 C.
-"5,9 '1
Q
LJO ID -U
j
AVENJE
676
or
C3 t, I
6771
'LJU
- i 10Q❑i-j
Ij
. . 6,,,"-
L
�Z- 00
CD u ci 0 r,
n1, aGDOOD,
f
6.3r U
c2u\ r5 b,16;
C3
Oa
0 a
L
A e
6,90
j 675-0.
in
r7l,
D -L
IV
COWRC
AU: r ER
r I Lj).r
SCALE N FEET
200 0 200 400''LEEPER PARK
600
U
Figure 3. North Shore Drive and CSO (Stormwater Outfall) Riverbank Protection Site Vicinity.
NG'NO 19-29
690 -------- ------
TOR -OF...ANC-H.OR.."..KEY i 4;75;__ -'F
AT t L. 61-.5 ...........
6 6
-10
TJ
'S[E ANCHOF
i KEY �DETAL'i
650
70
60 50 40 30 20
HI'Llre 4. Typical Cross -Section, Leeper Island Park, with Required Wall Construction.
L-
NGND 1929
690
J..
1-7
680
Tzz
670
FR; S �W � URFA CF R EVA i- f-KE-Y—ELLf
6&4.5
60-0
650 . .......
70 60 50
40 JO 20 10
Figure S. Typical Cross -Section, Leeper Island Park, with Existing Wall.
Lj
LIJ
<
630
... .........
Lj
7" -T
Z REQUIRED- - ISCAR
6.70 8":-TOPS0IL--WITH--;2r?-- j F1
T tp"� 'R St
o?-- E
>
L fR-6
_...fEQ
- 6r.8-7-LGI
E
k— G" R L--TILTER---
-- --------
0-
M-
(7) +�I L
tEfL
AE'I� -�GkANM-AR El
650iI
Lj
Z---- ---
....... ......1. .
6 5 0
10 20
Aq ED-
A- -E
D AYE R-
'.4
EF
LRED�-S. OT A -N..
+
N(3
0" ------- ----
SEE DETAIL
,TN
E
�j
-GRAIE - I
70
L
-REQUIRED—PIP
�A
---bkADEb----8T-ONE-,P- SIZE
.. ...... ..........
w 5
T-7 C* C'I 1A 71/1 �'I Ali
"Id il ; i , ;
. I 11,ATT-n: P
TL ZI ......
r
40 50 T 60 70
Fi,guire 6. Typical Cross -Section, North Shore Drive, 2 Horizontal on 1 Vertical Slope.
/VG VD - 11 9_2 q
690 .......
77—! j t EFT-"
LJ. -L-1. _41-11,
J_
IREDL
AN
Z >
T T
Li
68a
77
PZRMANEW _TU R
F -J. -L -I -4
A
G' -6E.
REQUIRE D';--8 - R I E
1570 t :EDt6--'AN D;-Fi Rtli
TOP'LWER'.1
!GR D D
7
R M U I R ED,-- ED—,
J_�R�1'1-F:T IT 'ER,- E
7 F
-60 r
_77
-EEt*- ---------- � J
4
650
10 20 JO 40 50
i -A
.......... -
60 70 80
Figure 7. Typical Cross -Section, North Shore Drive, 3 Horizontal on 1 Vertical Slope.
NORTH
REQUIRED I
s.. 12'-24 f
co MEET
EXISTING 1
I GRADE -
;WATER S'JRF.4CE
ELEVATIOIJ i
l'• 1661.6
EL. 658.5'
m
REQUIRED
I MEET OUTFALL RAP P
IPR
IOUTFALL TOP SLAB, IPR�
`STRUCTURE
8' 10'
!BREAK IN l
FLOOR SLAB
FLOOR SLAB TOBE REMOVID-- EL.
662.5'
r 1
t FLOOR SLAB TO REMAIN
\REQUIR_D 8" CRUSHED
10I GRAVEL FILTER LAYER 35'
i, 1 10
EL. 675.4'
i
20
Figure 8. Typical Cross—Section, Stormwater Outfall (CSO#6) Site.
SOUTH
REQUIRE SEED
D' f
AND P,7UI CH {
i 1
MEET !
GRADE �—
APPF OXIMATE GRADE
4 REQUIRED
COM! ACTED FILL
EL. 673.1' 1 I
—REQUIRED 8" (
GRAVEL FILTER
7
�PPSMENT OF T yFy�
p United States Department of the Interior
'AO
n a
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
CH
77 �BLOOMINGTON FIELD OFFICE (ES) .
620 Souti Walker Street
M'`Y`T� Bloomington, Indiana.47403-2121
(812) 334-4261 FAX 334-4273
February 24, 2000
Mr. Neal A. Gehring, Chief Reocl-k
Le e �a r k—
Engineering and Construction Division
U.S. Army Engineer District
Detroit
P.O. Box 1027
Detroit, Michigan 48231
Attn: Florence Bissel, Environmental Analysis Branch
Dear Mr. Gehring:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has reviewed the information provided with
your letter of January 20, 2000, concerning a proposed shoreline protection project
on the St. Joseph River in the City of South Bend, St. Joseph County, Indiana. The
site is designated the Leeper Park Project and is being investigated as an Emergency
Stream Bank and Shoreline Protection Project under Section 14 of the Federal Flood
Control Act of 1946.
These comments have been prepared under the authority of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661 et sea.) and are consistent with the intent of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Mitigation Policy.
The site is an island within the St. Joseph River at Leeper Park. The island is
part of the park and is also the site of 2 public water supply wells that produce
drinking water for the City of South Bend. The island has been protected against
erosion since the 1930's by an encircling 4 -foot high stone wall, constructed by the
Works Progress Administration (WPA). The east side (active river side) of the
island is experiencing erosion in 3 locations, and the stone wall has been
undermined and has collapsed.
Two alternatives are being considered to protect the island and the water wells.
Alternative No. 1 consists of repairing and replacing, where necessary, the
collapsed wall so that it conforms to the remaining WPA wall and placing riprap at
the toe of the entire east side of the wall. Alternative No. 2 consists of grading
the shoreline at the locations of the collapsed wall and riprapping these new
slopes. Riprapping of the toe of the remaining east side wall is also included.
A biologist from our Northern Indiana Suboffice visited the proposed project site on
February 9, 2000. The island is a grassed and landscaped parkland, with numerous
large trees, including Eastern cottonwood, silver maple, sycamore, and mulberry,
B - 1
2 .
plus some evergreens and shrubs. It is connected to the mainland by a WPA masonry
bridge, and in several location there are steps within the wall down to the edge of
the river. Therefore, the 60 year old walls have an historical and cultural
significance as well as a practical erosion control purpose.
At the most severe erosion site, a large cottonwood is being undermined and will
probably have to be removed. Elsewhere, the trees are further from the bank and can
likely be saved, although some backfilling around them may be necessary.
We noted that a fourth erosion site has apparently occurred since your inspection of
the area. As shown in Photograph No. 1, the stone wall has begun to collapse on the
west side of the island, along the channel between the island and the mainland. The
site is between the bridge and the southern tip of the island. A section of the
island is subsiding, indicating it is likely being undermined. Although this area
is not subject to the strong erosive forces that have created the problems on the
active river side of the island, we believe that this site should be added to your
project and the problem corrected before it increases.
Numerous species of fish are found in this portion of the St. Joseph River. During
a 1979 fishery survey of the river, Indiana Department of Natural Resources'
biologists sampled this reach at Leeper Park (Ledet, N.D. 1979. A fisheries survey
of the St. Joseph River in St. Joseph and Elkhart Counties, Indiana. Indiana
Department of Natural Resources, Division of Fish and Wildlife. 41pp.). Sportfish
included smallmouth bass, which were the most abundant species collected, bluegill,
and walleye. Other species included shorthead and golden redhorse, pumpkinseed and
green sunfish, carp, golden, spottail and spotfin shiner, spotted, white and
northern hog sucker, quillback carpsucker, logperch, and longnose gar.
Since that time, a major anadromous fishery project has been undertaken by the
States of Michigan and Indiana to construct fish ladders around dams on the St.
Joseph River, under the Federal Aid to Fisc. and Wildlife Restoration Program.
Steelhead are the major anadromous species that run up the river from Lake Michigan
and return, but coho and chinook salmon are present in smaller numbers. These
species pass through the project area and travel as far upstream as Twin Branch Dam
in Mishawaka, about 6 miles up the St. Joseph River. Both Michigan and Indiana now
also stock walleye, which have been found to be utilizing the fish passages at
various times and may be within the Leeper Park area.
Freshwater mussels have been recorded for the St. Joseph River, but we do not have
any information available about possible beds in the project area. Numerous aquatic
invertebrates can be expected to be present.
The most predominant wildlife in the project area is waterfowl. During our site
visit, numerous mallards and Canada geese were utilizing the river. These 2 species
are known to nest in suitable habitats throughout the South Bend area and may be
nesting at Leeper Park. Resting and feeding habitat is available at the park. Some
wood ducks may nest in the vicinity. Songbirds are also numerous and nest in the
trees and shrubs along the riverbanks and the park_ Muskrats may be present along
the river. Urban wildlife such as squirrels and Eastern cottontails are likely
found in the park.
B - 2
M
ENDANGERED SPECIES
The proposed project is within the range of the Federally endangered Indiana bat
(Myotis sodalis) and the threatened bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). However,
there is no suitable habitat for either of these endangered and threatened species
within the project area.
This precludes the need for further consultation on this project as required under
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. If, however, new
information on endangered species at the site becomes available or if project plans
are changed significantly, please contact our office for further consultation.
The FWS supports the use of Alternate No. 1 for this project. Although the
environmental"impact on fish and wildlife resources would be the same for either
alternative, we believe that social and cultural resources are also present here
because this is an urban park utilized by many people. Scattered piles of riprap
rather than the historic wall would intrude upon the overall outdoor experiences of
visitors to the park.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this project proposal. Please continue to
coordinate with us as project development progresses. If you have and questions
about our comments and recommendation, please call Elizabeth McCloskey at (219)
269-7640.
Sincerely,
Sc t E. Pruitt G!'
Acting Supervisor
CC: Mayor, City of South Bend, South Bend, IN
Director, Indiana Division of Fish & Wildlife, Indianapolis, IN
Randy Jones, IDEM, Office of Water Management, Indianapolis, IN
Steve Jose, Indiana Division of Fish and Wildlife, Indianapolis, IN
Neil Ledet, Indiana Division of Fish and Wildlife, Orland, IN.
Keith Poole, Indiana Division of Fish and Wildlife, Peru, IN
U.S. EPA Region V, Environmental Planning, 5WQW-16J, Chicago, IL
U.S. EPA Region V, Watersheds & NPS Programs Branch, WW -16J, Chicago, IL
MACOG, South Bend, IN
B - 3
IN REPLY REFER TO:
Unitec't States Department of the interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
BLOOMINGTON FIELD OFFICE (ES)
620 South Walker Street
Bloomington, Indiana 47403-2121
(812) 334-4261 FAX 334-4273
February 24, 2000
Mr. Neal A. Gehring, Chief C
Engineering and Construction Division 1Z ea c
U.S. Army Engineer District
Detroit
P.O. Box 1027
Detroit, Michigan 48231
Attn: Florence Bissell, Environmental Analysis Branch
Dear Mr. Gehring:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has reviewed the information provided with
your letter of January 20, 2000, concerning a proposed shoreline protection project
on the St. Joseph River in the City of South Bend, St. Joseph County, Indiana. The
site is designated the North Shore Drive project and is being investigated as an
Emergency Stream Bank and Shoreline Protection Project under Section 14 of the
Federal Flood Control Act of 1946.
These comments have been prepared under the authority of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.) and are consistent with the intent of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Mitigation Policy.
The site is approximately 1700 linear feet long along the north bank of the St.
Joseph River adjacent to North Shore Drive. Severe bank erosion extends practically
to the edge of the pavement in several areas, and 2 storm water outfalls are being
undermined. Numerous trees have fallen into the river and many more are in danger
of falling. Concrete rubble has been dumped in various locations in an attempt to
control the erosion.
Two alternatives have been proposed to protect the North Shore Drive site.
Alternate No. 1 consists of a composite sheet pile wall/riprap cover system, which
would involve installing steel sheet pile at the toe of the existing slope or a
short distance into the existing riverbed. The area up-slope of the sheet pile
would then be backfilled with earthen material and riprapped. Alternate No. 2
consists of grading and flattening the eexist;ng slope, filling as necessary, and
nrn,i i M i nn a rnnt; nein—; nr.aY,l anYn+- -r .1,e IP: 1 1 .,.E - -1 -
r
A biologist from our Northern Indiana Suboffice visited the proposed project site o:
February 9, 2000. in some areas, the trees have already been removed from --'-
through erosion and concrete rubble has been dumped in a haphazard manner to try to
B - 4
2.
protect the bank. In other locations, n ' umerous trees and shrubs remain but are
being undermined and either sliding, roots and all, down the slope to the river or
toppling into the river. The.distance between the edge of the North Shore Drive
pavement various with location.
The FWS believes that no one alternative.could be successfully utilized for the
entire project area because of the variability of the situation on -the -ground. Soil
stability and degree of erosion should be determined along the entire length of the
slope, since the erosive pressure of the flowing river is not uniform across the
entire area. Once this is determined, the areas with the greatest potential for
erosion can be located and individual methods of adequately addressing the problems
can be developed.
For example, during the very low water conditions during our site visit, we noted
that a "delta" has formed in the river, extending from the south bank past mid -
river, in the vicinity of the CSO #6 near Riverside Drive and Leland Avenue
(Photograph No. 1) . This higher elevation in the river bottom is pushing flows, at
least lower flows, toward the north bank. Removal of this delta in an
environmentally acceptable manner, and control of the sources of the sediments that
are creating it, could greatly relieve erosive pressures against the north,bank. If
the CSO's contributions of sediments into the St. Joseph River are not addressed, a
1 -time removal of the delta would have little lasting affect.
Modeling of the river dynamics in the project reach and upstream from it could
likely provide significant information toward developing an engineering soluEi7on
that will be successful in the long term. Otherwise, a COE project at the site
might not be any more successful than the -local projects have been in correcting the
situation.
The FWS strongly recommends that a projectbe developed that fits the river dynamics
of the reach and also saves as.many of the riverbank trees as possible. These trees
have lessened the erosion by holding the soil. They also provide fishery habitat in
the form of detritus and shade. Root wads in the water provide shelter for fish and
other aquatic organisms. The root wads at the base of the slope also help hold the
bank against erosion. Additionally, the trees and shrubs along the riverbank are
very important for.the human environment because of their aesthetic value and value
in reducing air pollution and summer heat in this urban setting..
Neither of the alternatives as presented are acceptable to us because either would
i , mpose just one solution for the entire reach of the river. One or the other of the
2 alternatives might be acceptable for a specific site but either could actually
inc I rease the problems at other sites. Also, less "engineered" and more
"bioengineered" alternatives should be considered, based upon the results of the
river dynamics modeling. Since this is a very aesthetically attractive urban
residential setting, steel sheet pile and heavy riprap would not enhance the quality
of human life in the area any more than it would enhance the biological quality of
the reach. Riverbank trees should be saved and those unavoidably lost would need to
be -replaced.
Numerous species of fish are found in this portion of the St.- Joseph River. During
a 1979 fishery survey of the river, Indiana Department of Natural Resources'
biologists sampled the reach immediately upstream from the project site, in the
vicinity of Leeper Park (Ledet, N.D. 1979. A fisheries survey of the St. Joseph
River in St. Joseph and Elkhart Counties, Indiana. Indiana Department of Natural
Resources, Division of Fish and Wildlife. 4!pp,) . Sportf ish included smallmouth
�4
bass, which were the most abundant species collected, bluegill, and walleye. Other
species included shorthead and golden redhorse, pumpkinseed and green sunfish, carp,
golden, spottail and spotfin shiner, spotted, white and northern hog sucker,
quillback carpsucker, logperch, and longnose gar. Another sampling site about 4
miles downstream from the project area recorded most of these same species, plus
rainbow trout, rock bass, longear sunfish, yellow bullhead, silver redhorse, and
bluntnose minnow.
Since that time, a major anadromous fishery project has been undertaken by the
States of Michigan and Indiana to construct fish ladders around dams on the St.
Joseph River, under the Federal Aid to Fish and Wildlife Restoration Program.
Steelhead are the major anadromous species that run up the river from Lake Michigan
and return, but coho and chinook salmon are present in smaller numbers. These
species pass through the project area and travel as far upstream as Twin Branch Dam
in Mishawaka, about 7 miles up the St. Joseph River. Both Michigan and Indiana now
also stock walleye, which have been found to be utilizing the fish passages at
various times and may have increased in number in the South Bend area.
Freshwater mussels have been recorded for the St. Joseph River, but we do not have
any information available about possible beds in the project area. Numerous aquatic
invertebrates can be expected to be present.
The most predominant wildlife in the project area is waterfowl. During our site
visit, numerous mallards and Canada geese were utilizing the river. These 2 species
are known to nest in suitable habitats throughout the South Bend area, but there is
little nesting habitat for them in the immediate project area. Some wood ducks may
nest in the vicinity. Songbirds are also numerous and nest in the trees and shrubs
along the riverbanks and in residential yards. Muskrats may be present along the
river. Urban wildlife such as squirrels and Eastern cottontails are likely found in
the general project area.
ENDANGERED SPECIES
The proposed project is within the range of the Federally endangered Indiana bat
(Myotis sodalis) and the threatened bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocenhalus). However,
there is no suitable habitat for either of these endangered and threatened species
within the project area.
This precludes the need for further consultation on this project as required under
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. If, however, new
information on endangered species at the site becomes available or if project plans
are changed significantly, please contact our office for further consultation.
In summary, the FWS recognizes the need for bank protection in the project area in
order to protect North Shore Drive and other public and private property. However,
we do not believe that the erosion problems have been adequately studied to
determine the specific causes due to the dynamics of the river in the area. For
vvamnl� t-.�c-. .i��Fa (-,� canimo.,i- tsar ham fnrmAn arr�c� +-h
south bank. in the vicinity of CSU 46 may be having a significant impact on the
direction and velocity of flows affecting the north bank. If it is determined that
this delta is a problem and should be removed, it will then also be necessary to
address the problem of the source of the sediments, because the delta will otherwis-
.;imply reform.
B - 6
4.
we do not support the use of only heavy engineering solutions to address the erosion
problems here. Also, proposing to utilize- either Alternate No. 1 or Alternate No. 2
along the entire 1700 linear foot project area is not acceptable because it is
doubtful that just one of 'these is suitable for the entire length.
the
FWS instead supports the use of bioengineering techniques as much as possible.in
order to preserve the unique qualities of the St. Joseph River in the project area,
including fish and wildlife habitat and urban aesthetics. We recommend
consideration be given to installation of lunker boxes and/or A -jacks in the river
at the base of the eroding slope rather than steel sheet pile or riprap (Enclosure
No. 1) . These would both stabilize the area and provide fish and wildlife habitat.
Native' vegetation plantings up-slope would help hold the soils against erosion,
provide wildlife habitat, and be aesthetically attractive.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this project proposal. Please continue to
coordinate with us as project development progresses. If you have and questions
about our comments and recommendation-, please call Elizabeth McCloskey at (219)
269-7640. 1
Sincerely,
S t E. Pruitt
Acting Supervisor
cc: Mayor, City of South Behd,'South Bend, IN
.Director, Indiana Division of Fish & Wildlife, Indianapolis, IN
Randy Jones, IDEM, Office of Water Management, Indianapolis, IN
Steve Jose, Indiana Division of Fish and Wildlife, Indianapolis, IN
Neil Ledet, Indiana Division of Fish and Wildlife, Orland, IN
Keith Poole, Indiana Division of Fish and Wildlife, Peru, IN
U.S. EPA Region V, Environmental Planning, 5WQW-16J, Chicago, IL
U.S. EPA Region V, Watersheds & NPS Programs Branch, WW -16J, Chicago, IL
MACOG, South Bend, IN
B - 7
��Pt1l` NT OF T y�ya
s
p United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
H 3.a�� BLOOMINGTON FIELD OFFICE (ES)
REnR 620 South Walker Street
MLYrU Bloomington, Indiana 47403-2121
(812) 334-4261 FAX 334-4273
February 24, 2000
Mr. Neal Gehring, Chief
Engineering and Construction Division a
U.S. Army Engineer District t o G 1 i
Detroit
P.O. Box 1027
Detroit, Michigan 48231
Attn: Florence Bissel, Environmental Analysis Branch
Dear Mr. Gehring:
e so-LL-�
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has reviewed the information provided with
your letter of January 20, 2000, concerning a proposed shoreline protection project
on the St. Joseph River in the City of South Bend, St. Joseph County, Indiana. The
site is designated CSO #6 and is being investigated as an Emergency Stream Bank and
Shoreline Protection Project under Section 14 of the Federal Flood Control Act of
1946.
These comments have been prepared under the authority of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.) and are consistent with the intent of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Mitigation Policy.
The site is located on the south bank of the St. Joseph River near the intersection
of Leland Avenue and Riverside Drive. The riverbank adjacent to a 90 -inch combined
sewer outfall is steep, about 35 feet high, and is eroding. It is proposed to place
riprap around the outfall structure. Some minor excavation may be required to
secure the riprap stone into the riverbank and around the structure.
A biologist from our Northern Indiana Suboffice visited the proposed project site on
February 9, 2000. The steep riverbank is well vegetated with a variety of trees and
shrubs, but erosion is occurring at the structure itself, which is basically a
concrete box outfall.
Our main concern is the method for placing the riprap. Equipment access from the
35 -foot high steep bank would be difficult and would likely require the clearing of
vegetation. Such clearing would expose soil to erosion. Usina eauioment in t_ha_
river would also present problems, including bottom disturbance and increased
turbidity in the water. At the time of our site visit there was a large area of
exposed sediments offshore from the CSO (see our report on the North Shore Drive_
project). If the riprap is placed during low water conditions, access could be
available on this sand/gravel bar.
R - 8
2.
Numerous species of fish are found in this portion of the St. Joseph River. During
a 1979 fishery survey of the river, Indiana Department of Natural Resources'
biologists sampled the reach immediately upstream from the project site, in the
vicinity of Leeper Park (Ledet, N.D. 1979. A fisheries survey of the St. Joseph
River in St. Joseph and Elkhart Counties, Indiana. Indiana Department of Natural
Resources, Division of Fish and Wildlife. 41pp.). Sportfish included smallmouth
bass, which were the most abundant species collected, bluegill, and walleye. other
species included shorthead and golden redhorse, pumpkinseed and green sunfish, carp,
golden, spottail and spotfin shiner, spotted, white and northern hog sucker,
quillback carpsucker, logperch, and longnose gar. Another sampling site about 4
miles downstream from the project area recorded most of these same species, plus
rainbow trout, rock bass, longear sunfish, yellow bullhead, silver redhorse, and
bluntnose minnow.
Since that time, a major anadromous fishery project has been undertaken by the
States of Michigan and Indiana to construct fish ladders around dams on the St.
Joseph River, under the Federal Aid to Fish and Wildlife Restoration Program.
Steelhead are the major anadromous species that run up the river from Lake Michigan
and return, but coho and chinook salmon are present in smaller numbers. These
species pass through the project area and travel as far upstream as Twin Branch Dam
in Mishawaka, about 7 miles up the St. Joseph River. Both Michigan and Indiana now
also stock walleye, which have been found to be utilizing the fish pass ' ages at
various times and may have increased in number in the South Bend area.
Freshwater mussels have been recorded for the St. Joseph River,.but we do not have,
any information available about possible beds in the project area. Numerous aquatic
invertebrates can be expected to be present.
The most predominant wildlife in the project area is waterfowl. During our site
visit,.numerous mallards and Canada geese were utilizing the river. These 2 -species
are known to nest in suitable habitats throughout the South Bend area,.but there is
little nesting habitat for them in the immediate project area. Some wood ducks may
nest in the vicinity. Songbirds are also numerous and nest in the trees and shrubs
along the riverbanks and in residential yards. muskrats may be present along the
river. Urban wildlife such as squirrels and Eastern cottontails are likely found in
the general project area.
ENDANGERED SPECIES
The proposed project is within the range of the Federally endangered Indiana bat
(Mvotis sodalis) and the threatened bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocenhalus). However,
there -is no suitable habitat for either of these endangered and threatened species
within -the project area.
This precludes the need for further consultation on this project as required under
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. If, however, new
information on endangered species at the site becomes available or if pr bject plans
are changed significantly, please contact our office for further consultation.
The FWS supports the placement of riprap around CSO 46. However, we have concerns
about access to the site and would like to receive additional information for review
as project planning progresses.
B - 9
3.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this project proposal. Please continue to
coordinate with us as project development progresses. If you have and questions
about our comments and recommendation, please call Elizabeth McCloskey at (219)
269-7640.
Sincerely,
Sc E. Pruitt
Acting Supervisor
CC• Mayor, City of South Bend, South Bend, IN
Director, Indiana Division of Fish & Wildlife, Indianapolis, IN
Randy Jones, IDEM, Office of Water Management, Indianapolis, IN
Steve Jose, Indiana Division of Fish and Wildlife, Indianapolis, IN
Neil Ledet, Indiana Division of Fish and Wildlife, Orland, IN
Keith Poole, Indiana Division of Fish and Wildlife, Peru, IN
U.S. EPA Region V, Environmental Planning, 5WQW-16J, Chicago, IL
U.S. EPA Region V, Watersheds & NPS Programs Branch, WW -16J, Chicago, IL
MACOG, South Bend, IN
B - 10
mm"""""""-NR
Indiana Department of Natural Resources
Diversity and Habitat Protection Unit
Division of Fish and Wildlife
402 W. Washington Street, Rm. W-273
Indianapolis, IN 46204
June 9, 2000
Mr. Neal A. Gehring, Chief
Engineering & Construction Division
Detroit District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1027
Frank O'Bannon, Governor
Larry D. Macklin, Director
Detroit, MI 48231-1027
RE: DNR #7952 - Proposed shoreline protection: Leeper Part, Joseph River, St. Joseph County
Dear Mr. Gehring:
The Indiana Department of Natural Resources has reviewed the above referenced proposal.
Our agency offers these comments for your information and in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act of 1956.
This project will require the formal approval of our agency for construction in a floodway
pursuant to the Flood Control Act (IC 14-28-1). Please include a copy of this letter with the permit
application materials. Staff may have additional comments or recommendations upon review of the
permit application.
The Natural Heritage Program's data have been checked and, to date, no plant or animal
species listed as state or federally threatened, endangered, or rare have been reported to occur in the
project vicinity.
The Division of Fish and Wildlife recommends incorporation of the following measures into the
project design to minimize impacts to fish, other aquatic resources, and the natural character of the
stream corridor. Utilize bioengineering techniques .and native glacial stone or logs for bank stabiliza-
tion. Install Junkers or other structures to enhance aquatic habitat. Do not use heavy equipment in the
channel. In addition, the division requests that an area or areas be included to allow shoreline fishing.
Our agency appreciates this opportunity to be of service and apologizes for not being able to
respond sooner in this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me at (317) 232-4080 if we can be of
further assistance.
Sincerely,
Stephen H. Jose
Environmental Coordinator
a
NC/f �(/1 c��v�e �('r✓f a�c�i ��� #-b
B — 11
NR
Indiana Department of Natural Resources
February 21, 2000
Neal A. Gehring, P.E.
Chief, Engineering &
Construction Division
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit District
Post Office Box 1027
Detroit, Michigan 48231-1027
Federal Agency: U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Re: Shoreline protection project at Leeper FA along the St. Joseph River
Dear Mr. Gehring:
Frank O'Bannon, Governor
Larry D. Macklin, Director
Division of Histone Preservation
and Archaeology
402 W. Washington Street, W274
Indianapolis, IN 46204-2748
PH: 3171232-1646
FAX: 317/132-0693
dhpa@,dnr.staIe.in.us
Pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. § 470 et. seq. and 36 C.P.R. Pari °000) the Indiana
Department of Natural Resources, Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology ("DHPA") has conducted a review
of the finding for the above indicated project in South Bend, St. Joseph County, Indiana for the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers.
We see no reason to object with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers' January 20, 2000, finding that no historic properties
within the area of potential effects will be affected by the above indicated project. However, we have noted that your
identification and evaluation efforts have not been completely documented as specified in 36 C.F.R. 800.11 [d]. If it has
not been done so already, we recommend that you make complete documentation available to the public and all
consulting parties for the above indicated project.
This analysis and comments on effects are subject to the following conditions:
If any archaeological artifacts or human remains are uncovered during construction, demolition, or
earthmoving activities, state law (Indiana Code 14-21-1-27 and 29) requires that work must stop and that
the discovery must be reported to the Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology within two (2)
business days. In the event that artifacts or features are discovered during the implementation of the
federally assisted project, activity, or program and a plan has not been developed, it is the federal
agency's responsibility to make reasonable efforts to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects in
accordance with 36 C.F.R. § 800.13.
If you have any further questions, please call our office at (317) 232-1646.
\Very truly yours,
C_
t I La D. Macklin
,aua His Prese,, vaaion Officer
i
\ L. 4:KAB:RSW:LAS:JAM:kab
cin Cc 1 l� C'r-S We f?
Sen -rvr- -t Ke- i� t I
Shoe �t-�ve ct'd CS 6
I:=111111WA
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Printed on Recycled Paper
M1
INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
�l We make Indiana a cleaner, healthier place to live
Frank O'Bannon 100 North Senate Avenue
Governor P.O. Box 6015
Indianapolis, Indiana 46206-6015
Lori F. Kaplan (317) 232-8603
Commissioner (800) 451-6027
NOTEwww.state.in,us/idem
li
From: Randy Jones Bate: February 8, 2000
IDEM
Office of Water Management
100 N. Senate Av. Rm. 1255
Indianapolis, IN 46206-6015 -
317 233-2473 FAX 317 232-8406
To: Florence Bissell
USACE Detroit District
Engineering & Construction Division- Environmental Analysis Branch
Box 1027
Detroit, MI 48231-1027
Re: Section 401 Water Quality Certification
Shoreline Stabilization Projects- St. Joseph River
North Shore Drive, CSO #6, Leeper Park
IDEM has received your request for Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) for
the above projects. As I have been unable to reach you by phone, I am sending this letter. The
information you submitted is insufficient to process your request. Please complete the enclosed
application form and submit it to the address above. Please complete one application for all three
proposed projects. Indicate final construction methods; materials, amount of excavation and/or
fill (cubic yards and area), and any re -vegetation plans in the application.
IDEM is required to public notice all applications for WQC. Please include appropriate
contact names and addresses per the application. Your application for WQC will be held in
abeyance until a complete application is received. You may fax the completed application to the
above number to speed processing.
B - 13
R. /,J 1"p., d An k(pril Opportunity Ftnploycr P/...... u,, ,, h t't
M+Octlmerlt C -
SECTION 404(b)(1) EVALUATION
Of the Effects of Placing Fill Material into the Waters of the United States
Pursuant to the Clean Water Act
EMERGENCY RIVERBANK PROTECTION
ST. JOSEPH RIVER
SOUTH BEND, INDIANA
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
a. Location: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit District, proposes to construct
riverbank protection at three sites along the St. Joseph River in the City of South Bend, Indiana.
The sites are located within a one -mile reach of the river. They include the east shore of Leeper
Park Island, a section along North Shore Drive and the riverbank around a stormwater outfall
that formerly was a combined sewer outfall (CSO) as described in the Environmental
Assessment to which this evaluation is attached.
b. Authoritv: Section 14 of the Federal F1ood.Control Act of 1946 (Public Law 79-526),
as amended.
c. General Description: The proposed action is to protect all three sites with riprap stone,
with the upper bank at North Shore Drive protected with a bio -engineered erosion control turf
mat.
i. Erosion protection for the North Shore Drive and CSO sites would be provided
to the 50 -year recurrence flood elevation (approximately 675 feet). Upper riverbank trees at the
North Shore Drive site would be preserved by using a bio -engineered erosion control turf mat
instead of riprap above the two-year flood occurrence elevation (approximately 670 feet). At
the North Shore and CSO sites the riprap would be finished to a 1 vertical on 2 horizontal slope
(about 27) with a 1.5 -foot thick riprap layer over a graded gravel filter. At Leeper Park the
riprap would be finished to a 1 vertical to 3 horizontal slope (about 18.5°) with a geo-textile
filter under the riprap.
ii. Construction of the riprap slopes would require vegetation removal and some
fill. aCti �.it" too ro t finished o T7 }.
grading and u;� vu ij ;.� .;iJu;v :u iinifG;;;;, sable .in7She:. slop.. The Lill beneath the riprap
layer would consist of well -compacted granular material with good drainage characteristics—
likely a compacted silty sand, or medium -fine sand soil. Coarse material such as sandy gravel,
C- 1
crushed gravel, and crushed concrete is more desirable for backfill below the water line because
it requires less compaction to attain the required density. Once the slopes are cut and
backfilled, the respective filter layer (gravel or geo-textile) would be placed in preparation of
placing the riprap protection.
d. Description of Fill Material: Only clean stone and granular material from active
commercial sources would be placed in the water as part of the bank protection. Site
preparation for all three sites includes excavation of approximately 2600 cubic yards (cy) of
material, about 1,100 cy of which would be from below the water line. Approximately 1,200
cy of backfill would be placed into the riverbanks of the three sites, about 500 cy of which
would be below the water line, in preparing the slope for the bank protection. Bank protection,
both in -water and above the water line, includes 1,800 tons of gravel filter stone and 5,900 tons
of riprap stone.
e. Description of Discharge Site: Leeper Park Island contains two municipal wells. The
island is protected by a 5 -foot -high (minimum), 1,400 -foot -long stone wall that surrounds the
entire island. Erosion has undermined the wall and about 250 feet of wall has been destroyed,
resulting in severe erosion in these areas. The North Shore Drive site extends approximately
1,500 feet between along a steep, severely eroding riverbank (approaching lvertical on 1
horizontal or 45° in some locations) immediately adjacent to North Shore Drive. This erosion
also jeopardizes two drainage outfalls and several utility lines. The CSO site also is on a steep
riverbank (up to 1 vertical on 2 horizontal or 27° in some locations), across the river from the
North Shore Drive site. The CSO site is about 100 feet long and includes a retired 90 -inch
diameter CSO that currently is serving as a stormwater overflow, but is.being undermined by
erosion.
f. Description of proposed discharge method: Construction may be from on land or from
the river. Land-based access must be achieved with minimal disruption of trees and other
habitat that is to remain in place. Water-based construction access may be by floating plant or,
if water levels are too low, by rubber -tired equipment in the riverbed. Any equipment operation
or travel on the riverbed outside the excavation area shall be limited to a single path to limit the
area directly disturbed. Riverbed travel shall be limited to that necessary for construction. The
contractor must protect the city water intakes and must control sediment transport into the river
during construction.
11. FACTUAL DETERMINATIONS
a. Phvsical Substrate Determinations: The fill sites currently are subject to erosion,
which is undermining trees and structures and causing turbidity and siltation. The eroded areas
and adjacent river bottom areas would be affected by excavation and construction activities.
Eroded areas and adjacent river bottom and riverbank areas would be replaced by riprap which
is not expected to extend more than 3% into the river channel over the existing channel
conditions.
C.-9
b. Water Circulation, -Fluctuation, and Salinitv Determinations: During the project
operation, minor short-term changes in water clarity, dissolved gases, and nutricnt levels may
occur as a result of disturbance to the bottom sediments. No eutrophication of the waters at the
project site would be expected. No significant, long-term changes in salinity, water chemistry,
color, odor, or taste would be expected to occur. No significant adverse changes in current
patterns, flow, stratification, water velocities, or the hydrologic regime would be expected. No
specific actions would be required to minimize impacts. Riprap bank protection would extend
into the river channel, but is not expected to exceed 3% encroachment into the floodplain and
therefore would not have significant adverse effect on flood flow capacity.
c. Susnended Particulate/Turbidity Determinations: No significant adverse effect.
Project operations would cause temporary turbidity from excavation and fill placement due to
disturbance of the lake bottom. Turbidity effects would dissipate over time and distance from
the work area and would not have significant long-term effects. Turbidity generating work
would be timed to avoid the important fish spawning periods. The completed riverbank
protection project would reduce turbidity and sedimentation by eliminating erosion at.the three
sites.
d. Contaminant Determinations: No significant adverse water quality effects are
expected. Only clean fill would be used in the bank protection.
e. Aquatic Ecosystem and Organism Determinations: No significant adverse effects.
Construction would disrupt existing habitat at the site. Fish would avoid the area because of
the noise and activity. Bottom -dwelling organisms within the immediate construction and fill
area would be destroyed, but these sites would be re -colonized after project completion. The
completed riprap riverbank protection would provide aquatic habitat for fish and aquatic
invertebrates. Fish may use the area for feeding, shelter, and possibly spawning. No impacts
would be expected to occur on special aquatic sites such as sanctuaries, refuges; wetlands, mud
flats, vegetated shallows, or riffle and pool complexes, as none are known to exist in the
vicinity of the bank protection sites.
f. Federallv Listed Species: According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service all three
sites are within the range of the Indiana bat (Myotic sodalis), which is Federally listed as
endangered, and the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucoco hp alus), which is Federally listed as
threatened, but that habitat for these species is not present at any of the bank protection sites.
Therefore, the riverbank protection projects are not likely to impact any Federally listed
species.
g. Pronosed Disposal Site Determination: Turbidity would be generated from
excavation and placement of the riverbank protection stone. The mixing zone would include
the immediate bank protection sites and areas immediat-ly downstream. No i-nifri:ant imfoactc
on municipal or private water supplies, recreational or commercial fisheries, water -related
recreation, aesthetics, parks, national and historic monuments, cultural or historic sites, research
C-3
sites, or similar preserves, are expected. In -water construction would be timed to avoid
important fish spawning activity. Bank protection at one of the three sites, the Leeper Island
Park site, would help protect two municipal wells.
h. Determination of Cumulative and Secondary Effects on the Acniatic Ecosystem: No
significant adverse cumulative or secondary impacts are expected.
III. FINDINGS OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE RESTRICTION OF DISCHARGE
No significant adaptations of the guidelines were made relative to this evaluation. The
proposed action is to protect all three sites with riprap stone. Alternative protection methods
include articulated concrete blocks, gabions, mechanically stabilized embankment walls, and
combination sheet pile toe protection with a riprap slope protection. The alternative of No
Federal Action was considered. The riverbank protection projects would not violate applicable
water quality standards. The project would not result in significant adverse effects on human
health and welfare, including municipal and private water supplies, recreational and
commercial fishing, plankton, fish, wildlife, and special aquatic sites. Life stages of aquatic or
other wildlife species would not be adversely affected. Significant adverse effects to the
aquatic ecosystem in terms of diversity, productivity, stability, recreation, aesthetic, and
economic values would not occur. Coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
indicates that adverse effects on species Federally listed as "threatened" or "endangered" are
not likely to occur. Appropriate steps taken to minimize adverse effects on the aquatic
ecosystem include the use of erosion and sedimentation control measures, limitations on in -
water equipment operations, and avoidance of in -water construction during important fish
spawning runs. The completed project would protect a road, municipal wells, and several
outfalls and utilities. The project also would reduce erosion induced turbidity and
sedimentation into the river. On the basis of the Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites
for Dredged or Fill Material (40 CFR part 230), it has been determined that the proposed
action is in compliance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
C-4
Executive Office
PRELIMINARY
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
EMERGENCY RIVERBANK PROTECTION
SOUTH BEND, INDIANA
A4_�Ck C_� VNA e Vt � b
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Detroit District,
Corps of Engineers, has assessed the environmental impacts of constructing emergency
riverbank protection at three sites on the St. Joseph River, South Bend, Indiana. The sites
include the east shore of Leeper Park Island and, about Y2 -mile downstream, the riverbank along
North Shore Drive and a stormwater outfall on the opposite bank.
Severe erosion at the three sites threatens municipal wells on Leeper Park Island,
approximately 1,500 feet of North Shore Drive, and several outfalls and utilities. The proposed
action is to protect all three sites with riprap stone. The upper bank at the North Shore site
would be protected with a bio -engineered erosion control turf mat to preserve some of the
riverbank trees. At Leeper Park, parts of a stone wall damaged by the erosion would be rebuilt.
An Environmental Assessment (EA) of the proposed riverbank protection at South Bend
has been completed. The EA indicates that the proposed action would not result in significant
adverse environmental effects. Nor would it be expected to result in any significant cumulative
or long-term adverse environmental effects. Adverse effects would be minor, including short-
term noise and air emissions from equipment operation, temporary local traffic diversions,
temporary turbidity from construction, localized displacement of fish and wildlife, localized
clearing of vegetation, and destruction of bottom -dwelling organisms in the immediate work
area. The proposed riverbank protection would protect against erosion undermining public
facilities and would result in a reduction of erosion -induced turbidity and sedimentation. Also
the riprap stone would provide in -water aquatic habitat along the toe of the slope and upland
small mammal habitat.
The riverbank protection project has been coordinated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service; no impacts to species that are Federally listed as threatened or endangered are
expected. The project is located within the 100 -year floodplain; however, the project would not
encourage floodplain development, nor would it impact flood stages. The proposed action
complies with the Federal Executive Order 11988, Flood Plain Management, because there is
no practicable alternative to construction in the flood plain.
-2 -
The EA includes a Section 404(b)(1) Evaluation, pursuant to the Clean Water Act, for
placement of fill material into the waters of the United States as part of the riverbank protection
project. The proposed bank protection has been determined to be in compliance with Section
404 of the Clean Water Act. The State of Indiana has granted water quality certification of the
project, pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.
The EA and Section 404(b)(1) evaluation, along with a review of comments received
during public review of the EA, indicate that construction of riverbank protection at three sites
along the St. Joseph River in South Bend, Indiana, does not constitute a major Federal action
significantly affecting the human environment; therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement
will not be prepared.
Richard J. Polo, Jr.
date Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
District Engineer
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
OF SOUTH BEND & SAINT JOSEPH COUNTY
March 20, 2006
County -City Building, South Bend
Council Chambers, 4th Floor
Members Present: Lynn Patrick [President], Mary Jane Chase [Secretary], Timothy Klusczinski
[Treasurer], Catherine Hostetler, Joann Sporleder, Martha Choitz, Jerry Ujdak
Members Absent: Diane Wrobel-Illes, Todd Zeiger [Vice -President]
Staff Present: Catherine Hostetler [Director], Julie Schutte [Assistant Director], Aladean DeRose [Legal
Counsel]; Staff Absent: Shawn Peterson [Legal Counsel]
Also Present: Gary Van Overberghe, Rick Pinter, Jean Crumlish (1021 & 1091 Riverside Drive), Vivian
Crumlish, Bonnie Sima (10 19 Riverside Drive), Joe Sima (10 19 Riverside Drive), Kelly Leddy (1025
Riverside), Dominic Biscuso (1025 Riverside), Jamie Loo (South Bend Tribune), Brendan Crumlish
(1021 Riverside), Paul Baranowski, Joe Taschetta (1029 Riverside), Rebekah Go (NNN, 1007 Portage),
Steve Ernst (51517 Haverhill Ct), Jason Durr (2621 MacArthur), Brian Arterbury (10910 Pewomo), Don
Sporleder
I. CALL TO ORDER, ROLL CALL: Lynn Patrick called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.
H. PUBLIC HEARING
A. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS
1. 2006-0227: 1029 East Wayne Street
Catherine Hostetler read the staff report. Philip Schatz, the owner, was present and noted his desire
to provide his tenants with a bench nearby their door for groceries or enjoyment a nice spring day.
Mary Jane Chase moved to accept the Certificate of Appropriateness, C of A 2006-0227, as
presented and recommended by staff. Timothy Klusczinski seconded the motion and it passed 7-0.
2. 2006-0224-01: 721 Forest Avenue
Catherine Hostetler read the staff report.
The Chair recognized Paul Baranowski: The deck proposed was suggestions by the homeowner and
I pretty much put a sketch together which you have a copy of describing that. I didn't go into too
much detail but I'm going to change it so I'd be happy to meet with your Standards committee.
The Chair recognized Commissioner Joann Sporleder: I had difficulty understanding your sketch
and was wondering where exactly this addition was going to be added on to.
Paul Baranowski: Right now there is an existing addition on the back of the house and this will be an
extension of that addition, basically six feet out with the same roof slope.
Joann Sporleder: and you'll have enough headroom at the far edge of that?
March 20, 2006 HPC Minutes—Monthly .doe [Preliminary] Page 1
Paul Baranowski: We'll have one step down on the inside and the Building Department requires at
least 50% of the room be 7 feet or above in height and we'll be able to get that with one step down.
Joann Sporleder: And the other suggestion I guess I would have relative to the deck is that if I
understand the placement of this if a hedge or evergreen were planted on the street -side of the deck
then it would no longer be visible from the street and that might solve the problem of how to shield it
from the street by a hedge of arbor vitae, if that an acceptable thing from the homeowner or the
Commission.
Martha Choitz moved to approve part of Certificate of Appropriateness 2006-0224-01, the rear
addition as stated, and to have the Standards & Maintenance Committee meet with the contractor on-
site to work out any final details regarding the deck. Jerry Ujdak seconded the motion and it passed
unanimously.
3. 2006-0307-02: 508 West Washington
Catherine Hostetler read the staff report and passed around the sample of the ECOSTAR composite
slate material.
The Chair recognized the presenter, Gary Van Overberghe: Sue and Barry Kessler are requesting to
replace the mansard roof with this ECOSTAR type slate shingle. I have photos showing the
deterioration of the existing shingle and they would like to replace them with same texture, color and
style as the existing. We will save try to remove and save the slate to our best effort and save them to
be used elsewhere if needed. All of the flashing will be copper. The chimneys that we'd like to
remove are at the rear of the building. They have deteriorated and have no use and they have caused
some water problems. They are placed in somewhat precarious areas that will prevent us from
finishing the roof properly if we can't remove them. The two primary chimneys on the west elevation
will stay and we plan to photograph the roof so we can replace it as is. Sue Kessler isn't available to
be here, but she had brought to my attention at the end of last week that the color scheme in the house
is exactly the color scheme on the roof and via the sample ECOSTAR has given us, I believe we have
a proper match, but she did throw in a request. She would like to change the red line across the top of
the mansard to a green line and keep the pattern in the reddish color and add an additional green line
below the patterns. The shingles on the hipped roof on the back, they would like to carry these colors
over also.
The Chair recognized Joann Sporleder: When you take the chimneys down, some of the chimneys
actually go into that mansard roof. Are you going through the mansard roof or to the mansard roof?
Gary Van Overberghe: Through the mansard roof. We will in -fill that structure area.
Joann Sporleder: Have you been able to determine what is causing the moisture damage in the soffit?
Gary Van Overberghe: There is tin flashing on this structure, which has deteriorated to almost
nothing. There is also a tin gutter system around the roof, which we are replacing, that has caused
that deterioration. There are actually areas on the roof where there is no slate; it has been patched
with pie pans and tar.
Joann Sporleder: Is there a potential problem using the tin and the cooper?
Gary Van Overberghe: Wherever those two [metals] will be in contact there will be a barrier.
March 20, 2006 HPC Minutes Monthly .doc [Preliminary] Page 2
Timothy Klusczinski: , Specifically, you mentioned that it would be impossible to finish the roof
properly around the three chimneys proposed for removal and maybe you could just help explain that .
forme. Obviously, when the people put the roof on 130 years ago were able to do it. I know it would
be easier with the chimney removal.
Gary Van Overberghe: My thoughts are that since these chimneys are not original to the existing
structure that as they brought the chimney up through the roof, they flashed it properly. I would have
to remove the chimney down to the point where it emerges from the roof and the existing trough
system and as I build the chimney up install the flashing and counter -flashing as I go. There's not
enough space to properly install the flashing materials needed. The mansard roof is almost a vertical
structure next to the chimney. There's not enough space to properly to install the flashing material
needed.
The Chair recognized any members of the public who wished to speak. Seeing none, the Chair closed
the public hearing portion and opened the issue for discussion among Commissioners.
Joann Sporleder stated her wish to clarify again that this issue is before the Commission because it is
a fagade easement and not a local landmark.
The Chair closed the discussions portion of the meeting and asked for a motion.
Timothy Klusczinski moved to accept application 2006-0307-02 with the color change for the two
rows of the roof slates. Mary Jane Chase seconded the motion and it was approved unanimously.
4. 2006-0306A Leeper Park West
Lynn Patrick: The Chair recognizes Catherine Hostetler who read the staff report.
The Chair recognized Jason Durr, the City of South Bend: As Catherine mentioned, this is a storm
water/sewer separation project from Navarre to the river on Lafayette. We brought a display. The
outfall pipe will be near the existing river crossing and will need to be stabilized in the river and we'll,
have a backflow preventor on it that will provide some protection from river water reentering the
system and it will also provide a closure point so that sewer gases will not be able to escape from that
point. We have one tree that will be in the way of the outfall pipe that will have to be removed. We
intend on replacing that tree in-kind. We will work with the Forester, Brent Thompson, on an
appropriate tree to be placed back there. The sidewalk on the east side, we are trying to do some
connectivity of the existing sidewalk south of Park Lane. I believe there is a worn path on the east
side. We just would like to provide that to allow for pedestrian access in that area. We are also to
proposing to bring in the curbs in that intersection, try to reduce the amount of asphalt in that
intersection. It reduces the amount of hard surface in the intersection, a little more green space, but it
also will slow down vehicles that make that turn at high rates of speed. One other item that wasn't
mentioned is the intersection at Navarre and Lafayette. It is currently a brick intersection. It is the
City's intention to remove the brick and replace that brick in the intersection. We are also indicating
a crosswalk that will be delineated with a stamped, colored crosswalk with two concrete headers. The
reason we chose that instead of utilizing the existing brick is mostly for ADA requirements. I'm not
saying that it can't be done but brick has the tendency to more heave a little bit more that concrete
and there is the potential to cause a heaved brick that might become a trip hazard in that crosswalk.
With the stamped, colored crosswalk you keep the aesthetic character of the crosswalk while also
providing a smoother surface. It will have a grooved edge, but this is minor compared to possibility
of a heaved brick.
March 20, 2006 HPC Minutes—Monthly .doc [Preliminary] Page 3
Lynn Patrick: The Chair recognizes Commissioners with questions. For the sake of the
Commissioners and those attending, this is a new structure that is being built here. Why is it needed
at this point in time?
Jason Durr: That storm sewer is part of our storm water master plan that has been developed over the
last few years. It is a plan that has been thought out. Its intention is to reduce the number of
basement back-ups that occur in our city's combined sewer system. Currently, about 85-90 % of our
sewers are combined which means storm water and sewage go into the same sewer. We are
separating this. We are now taking the storm water out of the sewer to provide proper drainage and
get the water back into the river without potentially causing the backups.
Joann Sporleder: On my map it is indicated that two trees are to be removed, but on this larger map
there is only one tree to be removed.
Jason Durr: Yes, we were trying to do our best to save the trees in that area and one of the trees is
going to be right on top of the pipe and we just didn't see a possible way. We will do everything we
can to save the second tree that's near the outfall pipe and work with Brent Thompson on the root
system and if it's impossible we will replace the tree in-kind with what Brent suggests.
Jerry Ujdak: Will this project force the shutoff of the street hydrants?
Jason Durr: At some point there will be some work being done by our Water Works Department that
will end up relocating a water main. We will do our best and I believe the cutovers will be done live
so that way at no time will there be a lack of fire protection.
Jerry Ujdak: So fire protection will continue? You realize we also have a landmark building over
there. Madison School. Will water be shut off to that building?
Jason Durr: There might be a time when it is, but it might be a day.
Lynn Patrick: The Chair recognizes members of the public to speak on this matter for no greater than
five minutes.
Ed Talley, 1081 Riverside Drive: I had not planned to address this issue tonight, but I do want to
point out to Commission members that the reason why the intersection at Lafayette and Riverside is
the way that it is: is because George Kessler designed it that way with an intended round circular
flower bed in the middle of that intersection. Basically, turning that' t" intersection into a
roundabout. I'm wondering if we want to do away with that feature because the Parks' last
renovation was done by George Kessler. And as far as the odor is concerned, we have been told that
that has been caused by the ethanol plant. And they did put in the charcoal filter system and they
have been having problems with this. But I think the intersection at Lafayette and Riverside is
important because you are going to be wiping out one of the main features of the design of the park.
The Chair recognized any discussion among Commissioners. Seeing none, the Chair entertained a
motion to approve or deny the C of A.
Timothy Klusczinski: I'll move to accept Certificate of Appropriateness 2006-0306A as submitted.
Mary Jane Chase seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
March 20, 2006 HPC Minutes—Monthly .doc [Preliminary] Page 4
5. 2006-0224-02 Shetterley Park
The Chair recognized Catherine Hostetler to read the staff report.
Lynn Patrick: The Chair recognizes the presenters of the application, Jason Durr, the representative
of the City and Steve Ernst, Christopher Burke Engineers.
Jason Durr: As Steve is handing out those planting plans, I would like to reiterate that this is an
emergency project with serious health and environmental issues that could potentially cause some
serious erosion problems along the riverbank and again it is unfortunately another location of the odor
problems that have been occurring in the neighborhood. The proposal is to repair the brick outfall
pipe, stabilize the bank, and also install another flapper valve gate. Basically, it looks like a duckbill
that would prevent the gases from escaping at that location. We would then close one additional
location where sewer gases are escaping. One of the issues, I know, has to do with the large swath of
plantings that we would have to remove to provide the access ramp to get down to the outfall.
Unfortunately, the existing grading will not allow us to safely bring equipment down that hill. We
asked Christopher Burke Engineers to look at the hill and come up with an appropriate method to
maintain a maximum of a 20% slope. We looked at several different routes and came up with this
route to minimize the tree removal and planting removal. And as Catherine mentioned in the report, it
is our intention to replant the area with seedlings and ground cover. We also propose to plant a
number of trees, granted they are now two-inch to three-inch caliper trees, but we are looking at a
Bald Cypress tree and a Sycamore tree to try to screen the entrance to the permanent access way. We
ask that this permanent access way remain for us to maintain the outfall structure. We do have a CSO
crew that is constantly out maintaining our CSOs and we don't want to go back in and wipe out
seedlings or trees if we again have problems with that outfall. We are proposing the 12' permanent
path that would have the low ground cover that would protect the bank and also provide us with an
area where we could take a truck down there or some equipment in order to repair the pipe or replace
the flapper valve at the end of the outfall.
Lynn Patrick The Chair recognizes Commissioners with questions. I'll go first. Was this a long-term
maintenance issue that just came to a head? What precipitated the emergency?
Jason Durr: We did some inspection along the edges of the river. We had to do an outfall inspection
for our CSO long-term control plan. We found a couple locations, CSO #6 being one of them. Since
the slope is so steep at that location, found that the slope was destabilizing and after some further
inspection by Christopher Burke found that the pipe itself, the structural integrity of it was in
question. The concern became, I don't want to use the word catastrophic, but it potentially could take
the hillside down if that pipe were to fail. So instead of reacting we wanted to be proactive and repair
this and of course there is the odor issue and we thought we could get two birds with one stone.
Joann Sporleder: I've been speaking to some of the neighbors along the way there and it is my
understanding that this has been an emergency thing since at least 2000 so it's not really an
emergency emergency. The notion of designating an emergency is a way in a sense to avoid public
hearings, as I understand the procedure from the Army Corp of Engineers. It has nothing to do with
you but is a requirement of those agencies that regulate these things.
Jason Durr: We are required to make notification, which we have done.
Joann Sporleder: But there was notice at least six years ago that this was also an emergency and
nothing much has been done about it since and I think that some people in the audience might address
that more fully.
March 20, 2006 HPC Minutes—Monthly .doc [Preliminary] Page 5
Jason Durr: I apologize I'm not familiar with the item done six years ago. I do know that 15-20
years ago we did lose a part of the riverbank at that exact site due to a similar problem. I don't know
why it didn't hold up after it was repaired. When we did the outfall inspection, we decided that it was
in dire need of repair.
Joann Sporleder: And how did you do the inspection?
Jason Durr: We actually had a couple of interns going out with GPS units and they came back to us
with questions and then we talked to our consultant and in this case it was Christopher Burke. We
asked them to do a more thorough inspection and come up with a solution in order to repair it... What
[the interns] were doing was actually identifying all the outfalls by Global Position System so we
would know exactly where our outfall was and as part of that we asked the interns to do an
inspection.
Joann Sporleder: Have you looked at any other way to come at this problem since this bank is so
steep and so heavily wooded with mature trees which I find this very troublesome because its in the
middle of a park and the character of the park would be completely destroyed by this ramp thing
going down there.
Jason Durr: As I mentioned before, we had Christopher Burke look at different routes to get down
into that area. We even considered a route down the existing outfall pipe where it was pointed out to
us by Wayne Doolittle that there are less trees; however, by traveling down that section of the slope
we would be running over the top of the existing pipe and as the slope goes down the cover over the
top of the pipe is significantly reduced. Driving heavy machinery over a brick sewer could just
perpetuate the problem and cause a collapse. So we looked at many different routes to minimize the
tree removal and that was our ultimate goal. But it is a difficult location to get the minimal slope that
we need in order to get the equipment down the hill.
Joann Sporleder: I guess I'm confused at to the need for heavy equipment. What are you going to do
when you get down there with heavy equipment?
Jason Durr: Well, they'll have to set up and dig out areas and stabilize area outside. They'll have to
have a backhoe out there, an excavator, something on tracks, and something to lift and set to new
valve into the new structure.
Joann Sporleder: And then what is the need for this area in the pink going down to the river?
Steve Ernst: The secondary access ramp is to provide an access route for the contractor, in case he
needs to get down to the river level of the construction site and that area will be restored to the actual
grade there.
Joann Sporleder: Have you looked at the possibility of coming from the river itself so that riverbank
can be preserved and just coming up this ramp that is just supposed to be temporary?
Steve Ernst: Do you mean coming at it from a barge? One thing, we did not evaluate that, but I can
say that because of the scour pit formed by the force of the water, we couldn't bring a barge all the
way up to the construction point because of what we are terming a rock band that completely
encircles the outlet. It wouldn't be possible to float a barge all the way up to the outfall.
Joann Sporleder: But you could float it close enough because of the rock base there that you could
unload the heavy equipment right onto the base especially in low-water times?
March 20, 2006 HPC Minutes_Monthly .doc [Preliminary] Page 6
Steve Ernst: It would be extremely difficult to get a barge to that location. One thing we are trying to
be cognizant of is trying to keep the contractor out of the water because they aren't going to like to
stage there equipment near the river. We've heard horror stories in other locations when equipment is
left in the river and it comes up quickly in a rainfall event and it takes some to remove
equipment from the river and you run the risk that you might lose the equipment to the river.
Joann Sporleder: But you would expect with our river and the control of the dams at Twin Branch
that just isn't a serious problem?
Jason Durr: There is a changing level, just from last week when we had a series of rain, [the water
level] came up. It came to a point where it was 6 feet over flood stage and that was just from about
two to three inches of rain but it all came about very quickly. II think when Steve is mentioning that
type of event when they are going to be doing the work during the spring or the summer we have
those potential rain events that would possibly cause a problem for the contractor in order to get his
work done. You also have to look at a staging area down at the bottom that would require some
grading anyway. You're trying to provide a level surface for the contractor to stage his equipment in
order to get proper ability to lift the structure that he has to put into place... We'd like to have the
access for any future maintenance on it. Right now we looking at a permanent 12' pathway to
maintain that end section. It's supposed to be low maintenance, that valve, but there is the chance for
debris and other things to block it up. So we would have to get a truck down there or something
down there to lift that debris out of it.
Joann Sporleder: So, for every one of these 32 odd outfalls you're going to be doing one of these
types of structure?
Jason Durr: In this case, it was being done due to the odor problem. That type of structure was being
suggested to be placed there, and this is just out of convenience because we knew we had to repair the
outfall. So we saw it as a win-win situation. We repair the outfall; we also close the outfall from the
atmosphere.
Joann Sporleder: The only thing that doesn't win is Shetterley Park, which is pretty much destroyed
by this proposal.
Jason Durr: Well, we are attempting to work with Brent Thompson in order to provide the ground
cover, the saplings, the trees to try to replace those. I know it will take a while for that to grow back
up, but I think in the long run it will stabilize the bank better.
Lynn Patrick: What percentage of the park do you anticipate will be converted to this access path and
this CSO in general when you are completed? 10%? 40%? 50%?
Steve Ernst: I'm not familiar with the entire extent of the park, but one of the things we have tried to
avoid as far as the overall construction of the project was the staging area that Jason mentioned that
we need. We will temporarily utilize the lawn space of the park. It was designed to avoid tree
removal in the yard area. That area will be restored to lawn areas when the project is completed.
Another thing is the permanent access ramp. Jason mentioned that we looked at several routes to
minimize tree removal along the slope and one of the City's goals was to keep the access ramp on the
hill slope and out of the yard area. This is one of the reasons that we have the grading on the hill
slope as it is and the angle is high as it is so we can keep the ramp out of the lawn areas so people can
still use the lawn for dog walking, running or any other activity. The actual lawn area, the permanent
impact of the lawn area, which will be the top area, we don't anticipate a permanent impact to that
area, only for the staging of the construction and only, maybe ... the lawn area should look as is.
March 20, 2006 HPC Minutes—Monthly .doc [Preliminary] Page 7
Martha Choitz: The people, who live on Riverside Drive facing the water, what are they going to
see? What are you going to put there on the top level? Is it going to be as high as Shetterley is now?
Jason Durr: We asked Brent what would be a good fit for some trees out there and he suggested
using a Bald Cypress tree, large caliper two to three inch calp. Now they're going to be smaller now,
but they will grow up. He also suggested the Sycamore trees, which are existing in that area also.
We like to alternate species in order to avoid lose of trees in case there is a disease or something that
affects the trees in that area. I asked him if it would be possible to look at larger trees, larger caliper
trees. He indicated to me that a larger tree tends to go into shock when it is transplanted, four -inch,
five -inch diameter tree. And the two- to three-inch tree actually outgrows the five -inch tree within a
year.
Martha Choitz: Do you think it's going to be an attractive nuisance down there? How are you going
to protect it?
Jason Durr: Well, we are trying to spread out the trees in order to block out the ramp as much as
possible. I mean it's going to take a while to grow up the canopy. We'll even look at adding more
trees. We're not adverse to that. We just want to make sure that the trees were appropriate for the
location. So if you want us to double the trees up at the top from nine to eighteen that's something
we're willing to do. It's not a point of contention for us. We would just ask that at the location of the
12' pathway that that is clear. As for a nuisance to get down to the bottom of the hill, I know what's
at the bottom of that hill. It's a Combined Sewer Overflow. I don't know if other people do know
that. There is a chance for sewage to be coming out of that outfall and it's probably not a good place
for anybody to be down there. We do have to have a sign out there that actually says a CSO and
that's by law that we have that sign out there. I guess I don't know what kept people from going
down there in the first place, if it was the steep slope or not. I guess the same situation would be that
there is a sewer outfall at the bottom of that hill.
Martha Choitz: Reflects about the past projects and problems in the area.
Jason Durr: Our intention is to make this a permanent fix. We don't want to come back here and do
this again. I want to make sure that this is fixed and this is resolved with this project. That is our
goal in this. I'm not familiar with the project twenty years ago to find out what they did wrong.
Mary Jane Chase: What materials will the railing be made out of?
Jason Durr: The railing?
Mary Jane Chase: Yes, the railing that is shown here.
Steve Ernst: For the structure it will be a Schedule A steel welded railing bolted to the structure.
Mary Jane Chase: Okay, aluminum colored, something that will be really noticeable? _
Steve Ernst: It can be painted whatever color. It can be painted brown, something that will blend in.
Mary Jane Chase: It's understandable that you will need it; however, would that be an attraction?
I'm just wondering if we're creating an attraction.
Jason Durr: We put signs up at the top of the hill that say CSO outfall. We try to warn people about
staying away from there. I'm not going to put a flashing sign that says: "Come down here, please."
But, it's possible I suppose.
March 20, 2006 HPC Minutes Monthly .doc [Preliminary] Page 8
Lynn Patrick: I'd like to open the public hearing portion by recognizing any member of the public
who wishes to speak on the matter. We'll have five minutes or less and I'd like to have anyone
wishing to speak line up so we can expedite this because we're starting to run long on our meeting.
Joseph Taschetta: My name is Joseph Taschetta and my wife and I live at 1029 Riverside Drive.
We're some of those people who are going to be right across the street from this boondoggle we've
been talking about. I'm sorry that my wife can't make it today, but she asked me to speak on her
behalf also. And, it's very frustrating number one, I just found out about this on Saturday through the
mail and I found out about this meeting yesterday. So I don't know what the big hurry is. I think it is
too bad. What I want to say is: I'm very proud of South Bend. I was born here. I left at six months.
I came back when I was 50. I'm very proud of this place, always have been and we had a lot of
greens and I see a lot of them being taken away. I see a parking lot now where the Madison School
used to be and I think enough is enough. Taken too much of our greens away. This is a beautiful,
beautiful park across the street there on Riverside. And it's the last of the wilderness that we have
within the city. You can actually walk down there on your own without a pathway, without stairs and
enjoy. People go there for retreats, for meditation. I go down there to paint and its just beautiful.
And if this thing comes about, it's going to be destroyed and we're never going to see what we had
again. It's just going to be a terrible eyesore, this ramp going down into the river. The reason my
wife and I moved to Riverside is for this park, for the natural beauty of it and it is gorgeous. But this
is the last that we have in South Bend. Please don't take it away.
As far as the engineers go. I'm an engineer and I know there are alternatives and I'd like to see these
people, these engineers, thinking outside the box. We have a lot of alternatives that we could have.
Some of them were already discussed. The river is very low at certain times. It could be worked on
there. Why not come in from the North Shore, and do the work from there rather than this terrible
ramp you're talking about. And a barge, there are alternatives. What's the big hurry? This has been
going on since the year 2000 and all of a sudden we've got to rush to this. It doesn't make any sense.
And the final thing is if you do this you're going to rape this beautiful, beautiful park, natural setting,
that we have. I plead with you, please, vote no. Thank you.
Brendan Crumlish: Hello. I'm Brendan Crumlish. I'm a property owner at 1021 Riverside directly
across from this proposed work. I have here a letter I received six years ago that I received from the
Army Corps of Engineers in Detroit. I received it by certified mail. I received this letter in 2000. It
outlined the work at this CSO #6 and also some additional work in Leeper Park and then along North
Shore Boulevard. I'd like to note that I think this designation of Emergency is somewhat dubious.
This designation was outlined in the second sentence here: "Emergency riverbank protection is
authorized by the Federal Flood Control Act of 1946." This was in September of 2000.
On page 5 of this document, I'd like to read a couple paragraphs. "Paragraph 2.11: Miscellaneous
Project Details. The proposed construction of bank protection at three sites along the Saint Joseph
River, South Bend, Indiana may require construction of one or more temporary structures, temporary
placement of clean construction material, site access or temporary work and storage instead of or in
addition to those noted above. All temporary facilities would be at US ACE approved locations
upland or in water. Outside of any wetland areas known to contain federal or state protected species,
or their critical habitat, or properties listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of .
Historic Places or state -listed properties."
"Paragraph 2.12. The type and location of temporary structures and/or construction aides cannot be
determined at this time since they are incidental to the work being performed. Examples include
turnarounds, work and storage areas, access ramps and office facilities. Such structures would
include appropriate precautionary measures to prevent erosion and sedimentation, or other
March 20, 2006 HPC Minutes Monthly .doc [Preliminary] Page 9
undesirable environmental impacts.. Temporary facilities would be within project boundaries or right-
of-ways and would be removed when no longer needed and the sites restored upon project
completion."
Further on, there's an attachment here, an additional letter from the United States Department of the
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington Field Office dated February 24`h, 2000 in response
to the Corps of Engineers. I will read the fourth paragraph. "A biologist from our Northern Indiana
sub -office visited the proposed project site on February 9`h, 2000. The steep riverbank is well
vegetated with a variety of trees and shrubs, but erosion is occurring at the structure itself which is
basically a concrete box outfall. Our main concern is the method for placing the riprap. Equipment
access from the steep 35' bank would be difficult and would likely require the clearing of vegetation.
Such clearing would expose soil to erosion. Using equipment in the river would also present
problems, including bottom disturbance and increased turbidity in the water. At the time of our site
visit, there was a large area of exposed sediments offshore from the CSO. See our report on the North
Shore Drive project." [That's a previous letter.] "If the rip -rap is placed during low water conditions,
access could be available on this sand gravel bar."
My point here is that I believe we are destroying a riverbank, a park, a beautiful section of forest all
with a sudden need to repair a structure that six years ago they declared was an emergency and is still
functioning today. I believe there are alternative methods besides tearing out the trees, clear cutting a
section and putting in a permanent road that will destroy everything. This could be done. I've lived
on this street for 35 years. All summer long that gravel bar is present. It would be no problem for
construction crews to access this point from down below. Thank you.
Jean Crumlish: Jean Crumlish. We own two houses on Riverside Drive, so we're really indebted to
the neighborhood and very interested in this project at 1021 and 1091 Riverside Drive. I have a series
of brief comments. I want to tell you that I whole-heartedly agree with what Brendan has mentioned
and what Joe has mentioned and a number of other neighbors that aren't even going to waste your
time by reiterating the same points, but they feel the same way by their presence here. Could you all
please stand, everybody that's a resident of Riverside Drive? Thank you.
I question the serious health and environmental issues that you've brought up with saying that it's the
sewage water mixing with the rainfall. That's a product of what goes in the pipe not what comes out.
I question why the equipment has to go down the hill and mention again what Brendan brought up. I
question whether the work would even need to be done until the river dries up anyway. As of today,
the outfall is underwater so I assume you will not be working on it till it is dry. That will be when the
riverbed is more than visible and you can walk across the north shore.
Beyond that, I'm a little resentful I guess. I realize you have to work in a spirit of cooperation with
the city. Why, when we residents of the neighborhood come before you and respectfully request C of
As we have to bring site plans. I, myself, brought one, and my husband, last year to remove some
trees. We had to show you specifically what each tree was, its age, and its type because you were
interested in that. Why can the city come in wave their arms and say we're going to have to take out
some trees? I did not hear any quantifiable numbers, whatsoever. Brendan and I went down this
afternoon and tried to approximate just by walking it off because we both have full time jobs neither
of them are in forestry. We ball -parked what we see staked off going down the hill if it is clear-cut.
Approximately 12 black locust trees 60' tall, 50 or so maples about every 25 feet we counted
between ... with the stakes being 25 feet apart with six sections of stacks we counted about 25 trees in
each area, so that's approximately 150 trees gone from the riverbank. So I guess I question why you
don't have to come in with the same detail as we as the residents of the neighborhood have to adhere
to. So I request that you either turn this down or table it. There are too many other valuable issues.
March 20, 2006 HPC Minutes Monthly .doc [Preliminary] Page 10
They'll cut down a tree in a matter of minutes. I resent the urgency brought forward six years in the
making. So please turn it down or please table it and get more information. Thank you.
Ed Talley: Ed Talley, 1081 Riverside. I think it was early 90s, wasn't it '93, '94 when the 96' inch
brick sewer had a collapse and I'm remembering that as living in neighborhood going down Riverside
Drive one day. We lost around 20-25 trees, Spirea bushes, etc. when that project was done and none
of it was ever replaced, but that was a time when the Commission was looking more at houses than it
was at the entire landmass when districts were formed. We've got a couple of things on the table here
that all relate to this issue. Number 1 as Mr. Crumlish has pointed out. You have a condition that is
labeled today as an emergency and that label has been on that project or planned project since the
year 2000. The other topic on this is you're wanting to cut a pathway that was in the Legals of the
Tribune as a temporary path which when I spoke to Jason on the telephone, who was most
cooperative in discussions on this, he and the engineering firm, said it was going to be an 8 -foot wide
temporary path and then I believe last week, the past is now 12' wide and it is permanent. Jason
asked_ if they wished to have it shielded at the top of the riverbank with trees or bushes and I think that
is the last thing one would want to shield an access point up and down. We live in an urban area and
we have kids that play and vandals and things like that. We have been plagued repeatedly in the
neighborhood by the fishermen. As a past board member of the NNN, we vehemently fought to have
the no riverbank fishing established. Now as time has past, it's all right to transverse the riverbank as
long as you're standing in the water to fish. Every time there is any indication, it appears, by a
fisherman wanting to enter the river, they do that including going across private property. Another
issue we have here is that unfortunately with Leeper Park, your previous C of A, that park was
landscaped with two gradual slopes on the face as is referenced to the terracing in the City annual
reports from 1912, 1917, and 1918. And I would think that one would restore or rehab the park if
there needed to be an access ramp down. But I do firmly believe that we need to backup, take a time
out, put this in Committee, take a real good look at this because the neighbors are right. For the better
part of the summer, you can walk upon this sand gravel shoal almost two thirds of the way across the
river. It is very wide and it seems as a non -engineer to be most acceptable to be as working platform
for heavy equipment being brought in by barge or for a distance approximately twenty to thirty feet
over the deep current on the north shore side. We don't need to clear cut the riverbank. Thank you.
Lynn Patrick: The Chair is now going to close the public hearing. I'd like to now recognize any
Commissions for discussion or comments.
Timothy Klusczinski: I'm under the impression right now that in 2000 the Army Corp of Engineers
evaluated the project, but now, today, in 2006 the project has taken on different composure being
specifically that this is being rolled into an additional sewer -odor control problem issue, mandating
that the chamber be installed when that may not have been the issue in 2000. Can someone answer
that?
Jason Durr: The distinction that I want to point out now is that the riverbank was the issue with the
Army Corps. Our main issue is not only the riverbank but it is also the structural integrity of the pipe
and the new chamber that needs to be installed. So there's not just the riverbank that needs to be
stabilized. We need to fix that pipe also.
Joann Sporleder: You might refer to what Brendan was saying. I understand that that the original
2000 thing was because of the sewer. It wasn't to stabilize the bank at all. It was a sewer related
issue.
Timothy Klusczinski: In 2000?
Joann Sporleder: In 2000, that was a sewer related issue.
March 20, 2006 HPC Minutes—Monthly .doc [Preliminary] Page 11
Jason Durr: It was due to the washout created by the end of the pipe, not the actual pipe itself.
Joann Sporleder: And it was rolled in with the valve and half a dozen other similar situations along
the river. It wasn't the only one. There's a whole series of them, which are still the issue.
Jason Durr: Well, there was Leeper Island, which was completed just last year along with a couple of
other areas along North Shore.
Joann Sporleder: and then across from the island there was another outfall, which is still a problem,
the big high one that cascades down.
Jason Durr: Oh, the storm from the... yes.
Joann Sporleder: I think overall it has been identified like 32 outfalls that need attention and part of
the original one in 2000 as well.
Jerry Ujdak: Would a motion be in order in the interest of time and also in the interests of the
concerns of the neighbors, they've obviously opened some avenues here related to this project, that
you, Gentleman, did not address and I'll just say that there are some things that there has not been a
meeting of the minds, shall we say. So I'd like to make a motion that we delay any action on this
project until the concerns of the neighbors are heard and addressed by the City, and the timeframe,
I'm thinking at least 90 days. Do I have a second?
Joann Sporleder: I'll second that... wait a second on that ... Can we have an opinion that we are in
order to do that?
Aladean DeRose: In order to do that, you'll have to obtain the consent of the petitioner to extend the
time with a waiver of the 45 -day limit.
Tim Klusczinski: We might table it though?
Lynn Patrick: No, we can't impose that long of a time frame.
Jerry Ujdak: Then, I'll amend it.
Aladean DeRose: I suggest that you hear from the City Engineer as to what type of timeframe might
be appropriate to take that into account as you...
Lynn Patrick: I think that is a great idea, and I'd like to hear from the City Engineer.
Jason Durr: I was just speaking to Rebekah Go, of the NNN. She has volunteered their establishment
to maybe offer a public hearing to address all these comments. I would be happy to set that up. I -
would be hesitant to put a 90 -day waiting period on this. I don't want to seem like this is eminent,
but waiting the 90 -days may put us into a time when we cannot enter the river because of the salmon
run and therefore would extend it even longer than that. So, after speaking with our design engineer
we feel we can address most of those questions and would be happy to do it in a public forum at a
time...
Lynn Patrick: I'd like to suggest a compromise on this. What if we hold off until the next HPC
meeting, which would give us approximately thirty days?
March 20, 2006 HPC Minutes Monthly .doc [Preliminary] Page 12
Jerry Ujdak: That would be fine.
Lynn Patrick: during which we could have a meeting at NNN and focus on this one issue and the City
could be there and the neighborhood residents and possibly we could explore other access or you
could make a strong case why access to the river is not available, why these trees all need to come out
and provide more detailed listing of the number and size and location of the trees.
Jason Durr: We will definitely see when Brent's available. Like I said we have been utilizing his
abilities as the City Forester throughout the project. That's not a problem.
Lynn Patrick: This is the motion. I'll clearly state it for the record. The motion is: we're going to
hold off on making a decision until the next HPC regular meeting with the understanding that there
shall be a meeting with the City people who are involved in this project and the neighborhood
residents to be held at a time to be announced soon at the NNN. Do I have a second?
Martha Choitz seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Jason Durr, the City Engineer,
signed the waiver of the 45 -day limit.
B. LANDMARKS (There were none heard.)
C. NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATIONS (There were none heard.)
III. REGULAR BUSINESS
A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Jerry Ujdak moved to accept the February HPC meeting minutes. Timothy Klusczinski seconded the
motion and it carried unopposed.
B. TREASURER'S REPORT
Timothy Klusczinski submitted the treasurer's report to the Commission.
C. COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. President's Report
Lynn reported that she and Timothy Klusczinski had attended the March 6`h school board meeting.
Tim spoke about historic schools and Lynn stated her disagreement with Dr. Raymond's destruction
of historic structures and schools. Lynn urged the Commission members to garner support for the
Riverview Gatehouse from interested citizens. She announced that March 22nd is the last date for
reduced pricing for the Traditional Building conference in Chicago.
2. Landmark Committee Report (No report was given.)
D. STAFF REPORTS
1. Director's Report
Catherine stated that HLFI had added the Studebaker Administration building to the 10 Most
Endangered List in Indiana and she handed out her report.
2. Assistant Director's Report
Julie noted that the Lincolnway East and Taylor's Field guidebooks had been distributed.
March 20, 2006 HPC Minutes Monthly .doc [Preliminary] Page 13
3. Legal Report
Aladean summarized prior appeal hearings before the Common Council and noted that typically the
President and staff spoke before the Council at those hearings.
IV. OLD BUSINESS
1. Chapin Park final draft at printers. (No action taken.)
2. Southhold Awards: Catherine briefed the Commission on the progress of the event planning.
IV. NEW BUSINESS
1. Southhold Awards Press Release released to SBT. (No action taken.)
2. Abandoned railroad right-of-way legal case. (No action taken.)
V. HEARING OF VISITORS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
1. Don Sporleder reminded the Commission about the recent work starting on the Michigan Street
Bridge and the restoration of an underpass to connect the park.
2. Mary Jane Chase brought in an article from the Chicaeo Tribune Magazine. "A Neighborhood
Rises from the Dead, which she thought would be of interest to the Commission members.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
Mary Jane Chase moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:15 pm. Timothy Klusczinski seconded the motion
and it passed 7-0 in favor.
Attest:
Secretary Date
Historic Preservation Commission
South Bend & Saint Joseph County