HomeMy WebLinkAboutHistoric Preservation Commission Meeting Signed Minutes - June 17, 2019MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
OF SOUTH BEND AND ST. JOSEPH COUNTY
June 17"', 2019
13"' Floor Conference Room
County — City Building
South Bend, IN 46601
I. CALL TO ORDER
Commission President Gelfman called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
Members of the Public Present:
Barbara Brook, 1402 E Wayne Street, South Bend, IN
Scot Hires, 632 Farneman Street, South Bend, IN
Dylan Risser, Quality Window and Doors, 27888 Co Rd 32, Elkhart, IN
Wendell Simmons, 124 N 2nd Street, Cassopolis, Michigan
Mike Stockrahm, 1120 E Wayne, South Bend, IN
Peter Wallace, 417 W Navarre, South Bend, IN
Virginia Wallace, 417 W Navarre, South Bend, IN
II. ROLL CALL
Members Present: Michelle Gelfman, President; Elizabeth Hertel, Vice President; Greta
Fisher, Architectural Historian / Secretary; Joseph Molnar, Treasurer; Sarah Ponder; Lesley
Annis.
Members Not in Attendance: Eric Stalheim.
Staff Present: Elicia Feasel, Historic Preservation Administrator; Adam Toering, Historic
Preservation Specialist; Steve Szaday, Historic Preservation Inspector; Sandra Kennedy,
Legal Counsel.
Staff Not in Attendance: N/A
III. PUBLIC HEARING
A. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
1. 1120 E Wayne COA# 2019-0530 #7796-87 East Wayne Local and
District
Representation: Michael Stockrahm, 1120 E Wayne, South Bend, IN
Scot Hires, 632 Farneman Street, South Bend, IN
STAFF REPORT
CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR A
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
Date: June 5, 2019
Application Number: 2019-0530
Property Location: 1120 East Wayne Street
Architectural Style/Date/Architect or Builder: Colonial Revival/1935/Naus House
Property Owner: Patty and Mike Stockrahm
Landmark or District Designation: East Wayne Street, Ordinance #7796-87
Rating: Contributing
DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURE! SITE: Two story frame house with irregular plan. Roof is side gable with returns. Roof
material appears to be the original slate. Windows are primarily 6/6 double hung with ornamental louvered shutters. Fagade is
wood shingle on the second story and brick on the first story. Entry door is off center with an entablature supported by fluted
pilasters. A rear addition connects to the garage.
ALTERATIONS: COA 2003-0224 approved installation of new gutters and repair of molding. COA 2002-0827 approved
restoration of deteriorated shingles/boards from second story. COA 2002-0822 approved replacement windows on the condition
that the replacement sashes retain the same appearance as the original windows. The rear additions connecting the original
house to the rear garage occurred sometime after 1960 (but prior to the establishment of the district).
APPLICATION ITEMS: "Re roof— tear off. Install ice shield, repair decking where need Shingle with architectural
shingle. "
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT: Contractor has applied to remove the existing roofing and install new asphalt
architectural shingles. The original structure has a slate tile roof that has deteriorated. The later rear additions have existing
asphalt shingles. The applicant has supplied multiple previous quotes for the restoration / replacement of the existing slate tile
from previous years. The applicant has elected to apply to remove the asphalt 3 -tab shingles at the rear as well as the slate
roofing and replace with Oakridge by Atlas architectural asphalt shingles on the entire roof. Photographs provided by the
applicant indicate that the underlayment is compromised, leading to water infiltration in the attic and main living space.
Staff would prefer to see all examples of slate tile preserved and restored on designated properties. In lieu of maintaining
original slate, staff would prefer synthetic slate materials. The rear additions of this property create an interplay between two
materials: original slate and later asphalt. An ideal circumstance would see the same material conveyed across all roof portions.
PRESERVATION INSPECTOR REPORT: N/A
STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES. EAST WAYNE STREET
II. EXISTING STRUCTURES
B. ROOFS AND ROOFING
Roof shapes in the district encompass most of the various designs found in residential structures. Roofs
are covered with a variety of materials such as asphalt, asbestos, wood, and slate shingles, as well
as clay tiles. Residences in most cases have wood fascias with gutters and downspouts. The facias of
some vinyl or metal sided houses are covered with the same material.
Required
The existing shape and materials of the roof shall be retained. All architectural features which
give the roof its essential character shall be retained, including dormer windows, cupolas,
cornices, brackets, chimneys, cresting and weather vanes.
Recommended
Whenever possible, the original shape and materials of the roof shall be restored. Particular effort
should be made to retain materials such as slate, tile, and other unique materials not commonly found
in new construction. Roof covering which is deteriorated beyond repair should be replaced with
new material that matches as closely as possible the original in'composition, size, shape, color and
texture. Gutters and downspouts are often a necessary adjunct in order to prevent deterioration
of the structure; they should be maintained whenever possible or replaced with a style
comparable and suitable to the architectural period.
Prohibited
Nothing shall be done to change the essential character of the roof as viewed from the thoroughfare by
adding architectural features or large unsightly fixtures, or by using materials inappropriate to the style
of the house. The roof shall not be stripped of architectural features important to its character.
Not Recommended
Overhanging eaves, soffits, brackets and gables should not be covered or enclosed when adding metal
or vinyl siding to a building.
I ... I
In making its determination, the Historic Preservation Commission shall consider three factors: first,
appropriateness of the proposed work to the preservation of the building and district; second, the
detriment to the public welfare if the proposed work is permitted even though it is not deemed
appropriate; third, the potential hardship that the denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness would
cause the applicant.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff concedes that both sections of roof are deteriorated and would recommend approval of
the proposed application.
Report written by
Adam Toering, Historic Preservation Specialist
Report approved by
Elicia Feasel, Historic Preservation Administrator
COMMISSIONER MOLNAR ARRIVED AT 5:33PM
PETITIONER COMMENTS:
Mr. Hires explained that the roof was deteriorated and that the existing slate would be reused in a later project.
Mr. Stockrahm explained that the landscaping could not happen until the roof was completed, that the major storms had brought
an oak tree down on the his neighbor's house and car.
Mr. Hires explained that the contractor who had been doing the repairs was unable at this point to do further repairs. Mr. Hires
explained that in his experience architectural shingles are a suitable replacement to cedar shake shingles.
Commissioner Hertel asked for an example of the roof (material and style).
Commissioner Gelfman asked for clarification: "are you saying that there is cedar shake underneath the slate?"
Mr. Hires responded that no, there is not cedar shake beneath, but rather that cedar was a common and appropriate material used
at the time of construction.
Commissioner Gelfman asked whether synthetic slate was considered.
Mr. Hires responded that he believed synthetic slate looked strange, but that it was an option.
Commissioner Hertel asked whether gutters and downspouts were to be considered in this project.
Mr. Stockrahm responded that the primary project was the roof, and they weren't yet discussing the downspouts.
Staff confirmed that aluminum k -style gutters are currently in place.
Commissioner Hertel explained that she would feel comfortable remanding the matter of the gutters to staff.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION: N/A
COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Fisher asked for clarification regarding the Staff recommendation.
Administrator Feasel explained that the staff recommendation was for the owner and the contractor to consider, that Staff does
approve what was applied for, but that these other options would be preferred, if possible.
Commissioner Fisher agreed that cedar shake is found on similar homes, that the slate was deteriorated, that having a uniform
roof material over the entire roof would be preferred, and that she is unsure of the synthetic slate's lifespan and
appearance. Given all of those points, she could support this project.
Commissioner Hertel asked for clarification regarding the use of asphalt shingles in historic properties.
Administrator Feasel explained that this is a common material, and that staff would prefer to move away from 3 -tab shingles in
favor of architectural shingles, as applied.
Commissioner Hertel asked about this property within the context of the neighborhood.
Administrator Feasel explained that this is a contributing property, it is not one of the notable or outstanding properties which
would necessitate additional scrutiny regarding the retention of the slate.
Commissioner Fisher asked about reuse of the material.
Mr. Stockrahm explained that he knew of a couple of people who would purchase the slate, but he would prefer to use it on site,
perhaps in his kitchen remodel which will be happening in the near future; to keep the material on the property.
Commissioner Annis concurred with the previous statements of the other Commissioners.
Commissioner Ponder is comfortable with this project, having seen the pictures of the interior damage and wanting the roof to
match.
Commissioner Fisher made a motion to approve COA #2019-0530 with the condition that
gutters and downspout approval be remanded staff. Seconded by Commissioner Annis.
Six in favor, none opposed.
VOTE: 6 — 0. Motion to approve application #2019-0530 with conditions is approved.
2. 933 Riverside Drive COA# 2019-0530A #7469-85 Riverside Drive Local
Historic District
Representation: Scott Hires, 632 Farneman Street, South Bend, IN
STAFF REPORT
CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR A
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
Date: June 5, 2019
Application Number: 2019-0530A
Property Location: 933 Riverside Drive
Architectural Style/Date/Architect or Builder: Side gabled/1900/Peck House
Property Owner: Dave and Julia Lincicum
Landmark or District Designation: Riverside Drive, ordinance #7469-85
Rating: Contributing
DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURE/ SITE: One and a half story, irregular plan structure on a concrete foundation. Roof is
cross gable with flat roof dormers. Siding is wood clapboard. There is a small open porch with wood clapboard covered piers
and walls. Windows are original wood 6/1 double hung. Roof is asphalt shingle.
ALTERATIONS: RME 2013-0506 approved rebuilding foundation comers using existing brick, repointing foundation, and
replacement of broken and missing brick with antique brick. COA 2011-0404 approved returning front and rear lawns to
original character with removal of multiple flower beds, complete north portion of rear yard with 8' wood privacy fence,
convert front sidewalk to brick pavers, move main entry sidewalk from Riverside Drive to Park for safety reasons, remove
dying tree in Park Avenue tree lawn. RME 2009-0721 approved tear off and reroof, install in-kind asphalt shingles, repair of
damaged decking, and install ice and water shield/drip ledge while keeping original gutters. RME 2004-0827 approved
replacement of rotted wood fence with new wood fence n same location as existing.
APPLICATION ITEMS: "Remove old `lean to "porch & build a larger, more useful porch designed like front porch.
Remove "lean to " style storage shed and replace with a smaller storage building that also has an outside room concept that
opens to a pergola. "
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT: The application proposes to:
1. Reconstruct the rear `lean-to' entrance porch to be more in keeping with the stylist cues of the front of the structure,
extending the existing roof line from the structure;
2. Demolish the existing 23' x 10'9" ancillary shed building;
3. Construct a new shed building, 12' x 10' with the following features, sided and finished the same as the main
structure:
a. 48" dormer on the south roof,
b. 6' double door on the east face,
c. 36" man door on the south face
4. Construction of a pergola beside the shed
PRESERVATION INSPECTOR REPORT: N/A
STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES:
II. EXISTING STRUCTURES
A. BUILDING MATERIALS
Original exterior wall materials in the district include limestone, flagstone, stucco, clapboard, wood
shingles, sandstone and masonry block. In some instances, vinyl or aluminum siding has been applied over
the original surface.
Required
Original exterior building materials shall be retained. Deterioration of wood materials shall be prevented
through repair, cleaning and painting. The existing or original architectural detail around windows, porches,
doors and eaves should be retained or replaced by replicas of the same design and materials when
deteriorated beyond repair. Masonry including brick, limestone, flagstone, sandstone and stucco shall be
cleaned only when necessary to halt deterioration or to remove stains, and shall be done with a method
acceptable for the preservation of the surface: i.e. low pressure water and soft natural bristle bushes. When
repairing stucco, stucco mixture compatible in composition, color and texture shall be used.
Recommended
Whenever possible, the original building materials should be restored. Metal or vinyl siding may be used
when it is the only alternative to maintaining or replacing the original surface material. When used over
wood surfaces, this siding should be the same size and style as the original wood. Every effort should be
made to retain the original trim around windows, doors, cornices, gables, eaves, and other architectural
features. Ample ventilation must be afforded the structure when metal or vinyl siding has been installed in
order to prevent increased deterioration of the structure from moisture and/or insects. Mortar joints should
be repointed only when there is little evidence of moisture problems or when sufficient mortar is missing to
allow water to stand in the mortar joint. Existing mortar shall be duplicated in composition, color, texture,
joint size, method of application, and joint profile. It is emphasized that, prior to initiating any restoration or
rehabilitation effort, the property owner should contact the Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend
and St. Joseph County which is located in the County/City Building of South Bend. The Commission is an
invaluable source of information about all facets of rehabilitation and restoration.
Prohibited
Wood siding shall not be resurfaced with new material which is inappropriate or was unavailable when the
building was constructed, such as artificial stone, brick veneer, asbestos, or asphalt shingles. Sandblasting
or the use of harsh detergents shall not be used on masonry including brick, stucco, limestone, flagstone,
and sandstone. This method of cleaning erodes the surface material and accelerates deterioration. Brick
surfaces shall not be painted unless they had been painted unless they had been painted originally.
Repointing shall not be done with a mortar of high Portland cement content which can often create a bond
that is stronger than the building material. This can cause deterioration as a result of the differing
coefficient of expansion and the differing porosity of the material and the mortar which can result in serious
damage to adjacent brick. Paint shall not be removed from masonry surfaces indiscriminately.
Not Recommended
Waterproof or water repellent coatings or surface consolidation treatments should not be used on masonry
surfaces unless required to solve a specific problem that has been studied and identified. Coatings are
frequently unnecessary and expensive, and can accelerate deterioration of the masonry. Mortar joints which
do not need repointing should not be repointed.
B. ROOFS AND ROOFING
Roof shapes in the district encompass all the various designs found in residential structures: hipped, gable
gambrel, flat, and combinations of these. Roofs are covered with a variety of materials such as asphalt,
asbestos, wood and slate shingles as well as clay tiles. Residences in most cases have wood facias with
gutters and downspouts. The facias of some vinyl or aluminum sided houses are covered with the same
material.
Required
The existing shape and materials of the roof shall be retained. All architectural features which give the roof
its essential character shall be retained, including dormer windows, cupolas, cornices, brackets, chimneys,
cresting, and weather vanes.
Recommended
Whenever possible, the original shape and materials of the roof shall be restored. Particular effort should be
made to retain materials such as slate, tile, and other unique materials not commonly found in new
construction. Roof covering which is deteriorated beyond repair should be replaced with new material that
matches as closely as possible the original in composition, size shape, color, and texture. Gutters and
downspouts are often a necessary adjunct in order to prevent deterioration of the structure; they should be
maintained whenever possible or replaced with a style comparable and suitable to the architectural period.
Prohibited
Nothing shall be done to change the essential character of the rood as viewed from the thoroughfare by
adding architectural features or large unsightly fixtures, or by using materials inappropriate to the style of
the house. The roof shall not be stripped of architectural features important to its character.
Not Recommended
Overhanging eaves, soffits, brackets, and gables should not be covered or enclosed when adding metal or
vinyl siding to a building.
C. WINDOWS AND DOORS
Window and door frames are in most cases wood. Brick structures have stone sills and brick lintels. In
some cases where aluminum siding has been applied window trim has been covered. About half of the
structures in the district have aluminum storm windows, the other half wood windows.
Required
Original windows and doors shall be retained including sashes, lintels, sills, shutters, decorative glass,
pediments, hoods, and hardware. When deteriorated beyond repair, they shall be replaced with units and
trim resembling the original.
Recommended
Wood frame storm windows and doors painted to match the original should be used should not damage
existing frames. If new sashes or doors are installed, the existing or original materials, design, and hardware
should be used. When metal storm doors are used, they should be painted, anodized or coated to match the
existing. When awnings are used they should be of canvas material.
Prohibited
Original doors, windows, and hardware shall not be discarded when they can be restored and reused in
place. New window and door openings which would alter the scale and proportion of the building shall not
be introduced. Inappropriate new window and door features, such as aluminum insulating glass
combinations that require removal of the original windows and doors, shall not be installed.
Not Recommended
Awnings, hoods, and fake shutters made of metal, vinyl, or fiberglass should not be used if they would
detract from the existing character or appearance of the building.
D. ENTRANCES, PORCHES AND STEPS
Most houses in the district have either an open or enclosed porch across the front. Most porches have either
hip or gabled roofs or are covered by the main roof of the house.
Required
Existing or original porches, stoops, patios, and steps, including handrails, balusters, columns, brackets, tiles
and roof decorations, shall be retained or replaced by replica of the same design and materials when
deteriorated beyond repair. Porches and additions reflecting later architectural styles and which are
important to the building's historical integrity, shall be retained.
Recommended
When enclosing porches for heat conservation or for other reasons, it should be done in a manner that does
not alter the architectural or historical character of the building.
Prohibited
Front porches, stoops, patios, and steps that are important to the building's style and development shall not
be altered or removed.
Not Recommended
Original porch details should not be replaced with materials representing an earlier period or style from the
original.
Exterior electrical and telephone cables should not be attached to the street elevations of the buildings.
III. NEW CONSTRUCTION
New construction includes any new building or structure constructed within the boundaries of the historic
district, or any new addition to an existing building. New construction should be designed considering the
appearance of the other buildings in the neighborhood.
A. HEIGHT AND PROPORTION
the majority of structures in the district are two stories high and are square, rectangular, or irregular in plan.
There are a few story -and -a -half residences. The prevalent fagade proportions are between a 1:1 and a 1:2
height -to -width ratio.
Required
The height of a new structure and its height -to -width proportions shall be consistent with adjacent buildings
in the district. The building height shall be no greater than that of the lowest existing structure of the same
type in the same block. Faqade proportions shall be established by permitting no structure with a fagade
wider or narrower than those existing in the same block. Additions to existing buildings shall be related in
height and proportion to the existing structure.
Recommended
Contemporary designs should be compatible in character and mood to the building or neighborhood.
Prohibited
Additions may not be constructed that would change the existing fagade of a building, alter its scale or
architectural character, or add new height.
Not Recommended
New stories should not be added not should existing stories be removed which would destroy important
architectural details, features and spaces of the building. Any style or period of architecture that is
incompatible with what exists style should not be permitted in new additions.
B. BUILDING MATERIALS
Walls materials in the district range from brick, stucco, clapboard, shingles, aluminum and vinyl siding.
Required
Exterior materials used on a new structure shall be compatible in scale, texture and color with adjacent
structures. Materials used on an addition to an existing structure shall relate to the existing or original
materials of that structure. As much of the original structure as possible shall be retained so that the
addition could be removed without damage to the basic structure and appearance of the building.
Recommended
Aluminum or vinyl siding may be used when it is the only feasible alternative. This siding should be
compatible with the original size and style and with the materials of other buildings in the district.
Prohibited
Inappropriate materials such as asbestos, asphalt, molded or artificial stone, or artificial brick shall not be
used.
Not Recommended
Glass blocks should not be used. Concrete block should not be used for anything other than foundations.
C. SHEDS AND ACCESSORY BUILDINGS
Required
Sheds and accessory structures (gazebos, decks, doghouses, playhouses, fountains and small reflecting
pools, outdoor sculpture, children's 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. Proportions and materials shall conform to those requited for new construction.
Recommended
Accessory building designs should be compatible in character and mood to the residence and the
neighborhood.
Prohibited
Prefabricated metal sheds shall not be used.
Not Recommended
Prefabricated wood composition sheds should not be used unless they conform to all other standards
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed project, with the caveat that further information
regarding the proposed doors for the shed be provided prior to installation.
Report written by
Adam Toering, Historic Preservation Specialist
Report approved by
Elicia Feasel, Historic Preservation Administrator
PETITIONER COMMENTS:
Mr. Hires explained that the project was self-explanatory, and that it caters to the architecture of the house. The proposal seeks
to replicate one of the dormers of the front of the house.
Commissioner Gelfinan stated that the proposed plan may improve the rating of the house, for the better.
Commissioner Gelfinan stated that she would like to see that the further details regarding the doors should be remanded to staff.
Mr. Hires explained that the windows would be the same as the front of the house, and the doors would be six panel and,
possibly a vertical pane at the top.
Commissioners Annis and Fisher asked for and received confirmation that the siding material and profile would be matched.
Mr. Hires talked about the window restoration contractor that they have used before.
Inspector Szaday spoke about the storm windows on the rest of the house being aluminum.
Commissioner Gelfman asked if the aluminum storm windows would be changed at this time.
Mr. Hires responded that changing the aluminum storms was not part of this project.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Fisher stated that she felt like the proposed project was appropriate, that the existing shed was unremarkable, and
that there is no `frontage' issue as it cannot be seen from the street.
Commissioner Annis stated that she would like to see all material, for siding, windows, or doors, be remanded to staff.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION: N/A
Commissioner Hertel made a motion to approve COA#2019-0530A with the final materials
for the exterior of the structures to be approved by staff. Seconded by
Commissioner Annis.
Six in favor, none opposed.
Vote: 6 — 0. Motion to approve COA #2019-0530A is passed.
3. 1133 E Wayne COA# 2019-0603A #7796-87 East Wayne Local
District
Representation: Wendell Simmons, 124 N 2" Street, Cassopolis, Michigan
STAFF REPORT
CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR A
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
Date: June 5, 2019
Application Number: 2019-0603A
Property Location: 1133 East Wayne Street
Architectural Style/Date/Architect or Builder: Colonial Revival/1938/Toepp House
Property Owner: Jim Nowicki
Landmark or District Designation: East Wayne Street, Ordinance #7796-87
Rating: Contributing
DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTUREI SITE: Two story house with rectangular plan. Roof is side gable with returns and
asbestos shingles (although survey card lists asphalt). Windows are primarily original wood 8/8 double hung at first floor, 6/6 at
second floor, with ornamental louvered shutters. There is a central arched entry with fluted pilasters. Fagade is painted brick.
ALTERATIONS: RME 2011-0921A removed one dead/dying Green Ash in tree lawn per Permit #197 requiring replacement
tree.
APPLICATION ITEMS. "Replacement of the asbestos tile roofand galvanized g utters with the Classic Products Oxford
metal shingle and new galvanized gutters "
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT: Contractor has applied to install new Oxford metal shingle over existing
asbestos tile roof, and to install new galvanized half round gutters.
While the 81 -year-old roof has been maintained over the years, Slatile Roofing and Sheet Metal Co., Inc. and Preservation
Inspector have concluded that the asbestos shingle roof is failing and may be considered beyond repair at this point, please see
respective letters for details.
Slatile has proposed to install a metal shingle style roof system that would allow for the asbestos to remain installed on the
house. Per the contractor, the main reason for not removing the asbestos is to eliminate the hazard of asbestos particles
becoming airborne during demolition and the possibility of becoming a health hazard to the neighborhood. Another reason is the
cost of the removal and special considerations needed in disposal, both of which result in a higher cost. Staff advocates for
removal of asbestos prior to installing a new roof product to eliminate a potentially hazardous material from existing on the
house and to remedy any moisture concerns related to the vegetation growing in or behind the asbestos tile. Regarding the
proposed metal roof, this particular product is not commonly found in historic districts but would simulate a tile scale, texture,
and pattern.
The proposed gutters are in — kind.
PRESERVATION INSPECTOR REPORT:
On June 6, 2019 1 met with Wendell Simmons from Slatile and Preservation Specialist Adam Toering at the property located at
1133 E Wayne N part of the East Wayne Local Historic District.
The owner has applied (through the contractor) to cover the existing asbestos shingles with a substrate membrane then finish
with aluminum asbestos looking aluminum roof tiles. The step flashing at the chimneys will have to replaced with a taller
version, and the distinctive half -round gutters will also have to be removed and rehung.
There are missing or broken tiles in several locations. The owners and contractors have been using up a stockpile of matching
tiles, but now that supply has been depleted. Patches of moss are everywhere on all sides of the roof. This would suggest that the
existing underlayment under the asbestos tiles has failed so far as to allow moisture to pool. Not to mention the extra weight.
The moss will need to be removed and the areas washed to prevent regrowth.
In a previous application for 1 105 E Wayne where asbestos tiles were present, the roofing had been removed, properly disposed
of, and a new underlayment and roof material then installed. I am aware that there are additional costs, but the removal of the
asbestos tiles is the only permanent solution. The new underlayment is to be installed with screws and washers through the
existing asbestos tiles and underlayment. I would question leaving failed material in place rather than removing it.
Steve Szaday
Preservation Inspector
.STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES: EAST WAYNE STREET
III. EXISTING STRUCTURES
C. ROOFS AND ROOFING
Roof shapes in the district encompass most of the various designs found in residential structures. Roofs
are covered with a variety of materials such as asphalt, asbestos, wood, and slate shingles, as well
as clay tiles. Residences in most cases have wood fascias with gutters and downspouts. The facias of
some vinyl or metal sided houses are covered with the same material.
Required
The existing shape and materials of the roof shall be retained. All architectural features which
give the roof its essential character shall be retained, including dormer windows, cupolas,
cornices, brackets, chimneys, cresting and weather vanes.
Recommended
Whenever possible, the original shape and materials of the roof shall be restored. Particular effort
should be made to retain materials such as slate, tile, and other unique materials not commonly found
in new construction. Roof covering which is deteriorated beyond repair should be replaced with
new material that matches as closely as possible the original in composition, size, shape, color and
texture. Gutters and downspouts are often a necessary adjunct in order to prevent deterioration
of the structure; they should be maintained whenever possible or replaced with a style
comparable and suitable to the architectural period.
Prohibited
Nothing shall be done to change the essential character of the roof as viewed from the thoroughfare by
adding architectural features or large unsightly fixtures, or by using materials inappropriate to the style
of the house. The roof shall not be stripped of architectural features important to its character.
Not Recommended
Overhanging eaves, soffits, brackets and gables should not be covered or enclosed when adding metal
or vinyl siding to a building.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff does not recommend installing anew roof over the asbestos and would advocate for
removal first. If all architectural features which give the roof its essential character can be retained, Staff recommends the metal
shingle. Staff recommends new galvanized half round gutters.
Report compiled by
Elicia Feasel, Historic Preservation Administrator
PETITIONER COMMENTS:
Mr. Simmons stated that the reason that the metal paneling was considered was because of the asbestos roof, the hazards that go
with the extra costs of removal, that encapsulation is a nationally recognized and accepted standard, and that his
company had executed the proposed encapsulation on a church in Mishawaka. Mr. Simmons discussed the procedure
for removing an asbestos roof, and the required precautions needed to ensure that the asbestos does not become
airborne. Mr. Simmons explained that this is a more expensive product than the asphalt shingles that were approved
in an earlier project. Mr. Simmons stated that if the Commission were to request that the asbestos be removed, that he
did not feel the property owner would go forward with it, because it would cost more money.
Commissioner Annis asked what the warranty on this product was.
Mr. Simmons responded that it was a lifetime warranty — if the property owner sells the house, the new owner receives a 40 year
warranty.
Commissioner Gelfman asked regarding the mold or moss that is on the existing roof.
Mr. Simmons explained that they have to use a low-pressure power washer before it can be encapsulated.
Commissioner Annis asked about how the project is regulated, is there a specific testing agency that monitors projects like this.
Mr. Simmons explained that there is, that there has to be air monitoring if the asbestos were to be removed, requiring a block or
so radius. Mr. Simmons expressed concerns that the summer work period would result in a higher cause for concern
as kids would be playing in the neighborhood. Legally they are required to let everyone know in the event of asbestos
removal.
Commissioner Hertel asked about the heating of the roof and how that would impact the asbestos roof.
Mr. Simmons stated that the existing asbestos roof probably had the growth within five years of it being installed. The metal
roof has a reflective coating on it, and it will have the synthetic felt layer between the asbestos and the metal roof.
Commissioner Hertel expressed concern regarding the presence of a known hazard on the house, that it is important that this be
discussed, whether it is removed now, or later, because of long-term concerns of the failure of the material.
Commissioner Fisher asked regarding the constitution of the decking material underneath the asbestos.
Mr. Simmons explained that it was solid decking, that per the homeowner's information, there are no slats. The new material
would be put on with screws. The felt would extend over the entire roof.
Commissioner Fisher asked about the trim work.
Mr. Simmons explained that special metal trim work would be utilized on the eave edge that lock in together.
Commissioner Annis asked about the product and the manufacturer.
Mr. Simmons explained that it is by Plastic Products, out of Ohio. This particular design is called `Oxford.'
Administrator Feasel explained that the word 'mold' was used, that staff referenced moss and material, but that it was somehow
confused into mold. Staff does not believe it to be mold. Administrator Feasel expressed concern and questioned
whether the moisture could have gotten through and behind the asbestos, and may cause a problem. She expressed
that the property owner has said that there is no visible leaks at this time. Since we are seeing live vegetation on the
outside of the roof, could it be possible that it is on the inside, and how would we know.
Mr. Simmons expressed that it is only on the north side, the sun kills it otherwise. It's also age.
Inspector Szaday asked about the way through which the material is secured to the roof, via screws, and that would disturb the
asbestos.
Mr. Simmons explained that the synthetic felt is over the asbestos and that it is contained. The felt is '20 mil' thick.
Commissioner Molnar stated that we are not the Building Department, and that building permits would be needed.
Administrator Feasel expressed that the concerns were based upon Secretary of the Interior Preservation Briefs.
Specialist Toering stated that he had taken a course on Lead Paint, Asbestos, and Silicates, although that does not make him an
expert in it. Encapsulation is an acceptable form of mitigation, that will last for the length of the duration of the
covering material. But the asbestos will still be there.
Commissioner Fisher expressed that discussions regarding the use of this material is precedent setting.
Specialist Toering reiterated his concern that the first thing to fail relating to this project will be the gutter systems, which, per
Mr. Simmons, will be face mounted, which alleviates some of the concern regarding typical gutter mounting systems.
Second, Specialist Toering is concerned that a later owner may drill through the roof not knowing that there is
asbestos beneath. The probability of that is arguably low, however. Finally, were a tree to fall onto this roof — there is
one tree to the west that may be tall enough — there would still be the opportunity for asbestos fibers to be created and
released into the air. Catastrophic roof failure is still a concern.
Commissioner Molnar asked about the cost.
Mr. Simmons stated that the most expensive part of this project is the abatement.
Administrator Feasel and Inspector Szaday discussed the educational commitment of the Commission to engage with materials
and environment.
Commissioner Gelfman asked about the gutters, which are painted.
Administrator Feasel discussed the standards and guidelines text regarding the architectural details and essential character of the
roof.
Mr. Simmons discussed the ways through which the fascia and details will change with the new installation, some of the detail
will be covered with the new trim, of some 2 '/2" portion.
Commissioner Molnar confirmed that Slatile had been doing the maintenance, and asked about the failure of the asbestos.
Mr. Simmons spoke about his company's efforts to maintain the roof, and how they have patched and repaired with material
that they have retained previously. Mr. Simmons spoke about the portions of the roof that are failing. Mr. Simmons
spoke about the desire of the property owner to fix the issue. The shingles have been on since 1938.
Specialist Toering asked when the last time Slatile had `demolished' an asbestos roof was.
Mr. Simmons stated that it was over 15 years ago, and there are thankfully fewer asbestos roofs are remaining.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Hertel expressed her reservations about this project, in its entirety — it is a major change in appearance. The
health concerns regarding the asbestos remediation. This will set a precedent. Commissioner Hertel expressed that
this kind of material will have a somewhat industrial look that will detract from the appearance of the structure.
Commissioner Fishes expressed that she too is having trouble with this project, and expressed that she would feel better if she
had the homeowner present to express their desire to live with this circumstance. Commissioner Fisher further
explained that she didn't really hate the look of the product, but she didn't know what it would look like on, and she
was nervous about the details on the comers and how it would look. Her discomfort is really with this product, and
whether this will open the door to other metal roofs. She expressed that were this a metal standing -seam roof, it
wouldn't be a discussion moving forward.
Mr. Simmons expressed that [standing -seam roofs] have already been installed in the neighborhood.
Commissioner Fisher expressed reservations that it wouldn't be approved now.
Specialist Toering explained that the project being referenced was approved four years ago or so (on E Jefferson) for a garage
addition.
Mr. Simmons agreed that it looked bad for the neighborhood.
Commissioner Hertel explained that it was the Commission's job to maintain the historic integrity of the neighborhood.
Mr. Simmons stated that he believed the proposed product was the best product to replicate the asbestos shingle, and argued
about that the synthetic slate that has been installed looks good.
Commissioner Gelfman asked the Commissioners to look at the provided examples of the proposed roof as installed.
Commissioner Fisher expressed that she thinks it has a monolithic look, but this may be a good test -case for this product.
Commissioner Ponder asked for clarification regarding previous asbestos roof removals.
Inspector Szaday spoke about one of the recent asbestos removal projects, where the replacement of the decking required the
removal of the asbestos shingles.
Administrator Feasel discussed a previous example where the Commission approved an encapsulation, but the permit pulled
with the Building Department was for a complete tear -off. Administrator Feasel spoke about her experiences working
with Mr. Simmons and Slatile prior to this project, and her familiarity with their work and comfort with asking for
additional information. She discussed her previous conversation with the property owner where he expressed his
ability to `do nothing' and just leave it like it is because there isn't a leak, and expressed that it is similar to the
example behind his (the standing seam roof). She then asked Mr. Nowicki regarding the cost of the removal of the
asbestos, and to replace it with asphalt. The National Parks — in their Preservation Briefs — accepts asphalt roofs as a
suitable replacement of asbestos shingle.
Mr. Simmons expressed that there were no other alternative products up until recently to encapsulate the asbestos like this. He
also expressed additional examples of this kind of roof in the area.
Commissioner Hertel discussed the options available to the Commission, and expressed a desire to have the homeowner present
to provide his opinions and his case.
Mr. Simmons explained that he did not think the homeowner would have a problem with tabling the project until next month to
ensure the owner be present to answer questions.
Commissioner Gelfman would like to see the cost numbers for other installation options as a comparison.
Administrator Feasel mentioned the rating of the property, and how replicating the shingle pattern isn't as important of a feature
to be replicated, so as to allow the asphalt shingle installation.
Commissioner Gelfrnan felt that the issue wasn't product, it was the asbestos.
Commissioner Fisher expressed that the details of the roof — trim, etc would be changed.
Mr. Simmons explained that the details will be the same, some of the cornice would be covered, because of the installation of
the ice shield. Overall the project will comedown to money issues.
Commissioner Hertel expressed desire to table until next month to discuss other options.
Commissioner Molnar asked to continue the project to see additional numbers on the project.
Mr. Simmons asked for clarification on which numbers would be requested.
Administrator Feasel explained that the continuation is not a denial, it is just a request for additional information.
Commissioner Annis expressed appreciation that the homeowner had the foresight to contract with a reputable company who is
doing things the appropriate way.
PUBLIC DISCLSSION: N/A
Commissioner Molnar made a motion to continue COA#2019-0603A to the July meeting of
the Commission, and request from the petitioner that at the next meeting they
return with numbers on how much the asbestos removal would cost, and then
how much it would cost to remove with the installation of the asphalt
architectural shingles, and then how much this project would cost with the
containment metal material, and then also that the homeowner please be present.
Seconded by Commissioner Hertel.
Six in favor, none opposed.
Vote: 6 — 0. Motion to continue COA #2019-0603A is approved.
Application #2019-0603A is continued until the July Commission meeting.
Mr. Simmons clarified the different options he should have numbers for.
COMMISSIONER HERTEL LEFT THE PROCEEDINGS AT 6:39PM.
4. 237 N Michigan COA# 2019-0603B #8652-1996 Local Landmark
Representation: N/A
WITHDRAWN.
5. 417 W Navarre Avenue #2019-0603C #9574-05 Chapin Park Local and
National Register Historic District
Representation: Peter Wallace, 417 W Navarre, South Bend, IN
Virginia Wallace, 417 W Navarre, South Bend, IN
COMMISSIONER HERTEL REJOINED THE MEETING AT 6:42 PM.
STAFF REPORT
CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR A
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
Date: June 13, 2019
Application Number: 2019-0603C
Property Location: 417 W Navarre Avenue
Architectural Style/Date/Architect or Builder: Queen Anne / 1919
Property Owner: Peter and Virginia Wallace
Landmark or District Designation: Chapin Park Local (Ordinance #9574-05) and National Historic District
Rating: Outstanding
DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURE/SITE: Three story Queen Anne (irregular plan) on a brick foundation. Two chimneys
punctuate the roof line and have decorative vertical brick string course, polygonal appearance due to central pinching. The
wood shingles decorate the exterior as well as the peaks on the second story, with clapboard elsewhere. Considerable
decoration is on the west face of the second story. The roof is hipped with gables, barge board on the gables, and has a molded
cornice. The south face has an enclosed brick porch with wall and pillars, stone sills, and double -hung sashes. The front
entrance was formerly composed of wood double -leaf multi -paned doors with glass in upper quarter. Original screened French
doors exist.
ALTERATIONS: Administrative Approval #2019-0603 allowed for trimming overgrown vegetation from the fence -line,
deck, and exterior grounds of the house. AA 2019-0402A allowed for the repair and reconstruction of both chimneys with
existing material. Exterior doors were removed and replaced without permit or approval in the summer of 2018. RME #2018-
0725A allowed for trimming overgrown vegetation from the fence -line, deck, and around the house. RME #2018-0517A
allowed for the removal and replacement of the roof. COA #2016-0218 allowed for the in-kind repair of rear exterior window
stairs and repair wood siding, as well as the trimming of vegetation 18" from the structure. COA #2013-1202A allowed for the
in-kind replacement of a 32" x 85" wood frame window.
APPLICATION ITEMS: "Remove outside basement stair well, removing rear porch, and using existing foundatiozz footprint
for addition. Moving existing window to pantry, adding three windows to match existing kitchen windows, adding kitchen /
laundry room /using matching siding/trim."
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT: Applicant seeks a Certificate of Appropriateness for changes on the structure:
1. The enclosure of the rear porch, replicating and extending the existing wood siding,
2. New foundation porch masonry to enclose the existing cavity with matching material,
3. The enclosure of the existing basement exterior entrance with a metal hatch door(s),
4. The removal of the northern stair to the exterior porch,
5. The removal of one, and the subsequent addition of two windows to the north fagade of the enclosed porch,
6. The removal of the existing north favade window — this window will be moved to the eastern wall of the pantry
area,
7. The reinstallation of the existing rear porch door on the western side of the enclosed porch.
The above modifications are to increase/extend the existing kitchen area, as well as mitigate current water infiltration to the
structure through the basement entrance. All changes will be executed with like -in-kind materials (wood, concrete, and brick).
The applicant is considering window options and plans to investigate the viability of existing HPC window stock as a potential
solution.
SITE VISIT REPORT: Preservation Specialist Toering visited the site on June 10, 2019 to discuss the proposed project and
photograph the project areas. Windows and doors described as being re -used are in good/stable condition and would make
excellent candidates for transfer to the new locations. The existing basement access creates a water -ingress opportunity as well
as a security concern; staff recommends the space be enclosed.
STANDARDS AND GUIDELINE : CHAPIN PARK
Il. EXISTING STRUCTURES
A. BUILDING MATERIALS
Original exterior building materials in the district include brick, stucco, clapboard, wood shingles, and brick or stone masonry.
In some instances, vinyl, composite and aluminum siding have been applied over the original material.
Required
Original exterior building materials shall be retained when possible. Deterioration of wood materials shall be prevented
through repair, cleaning and painting. The existing architectural detail around windows, porches, doors and eaves shall
be retained or replaced by replicas of the same design when deteriorated beyond repair.
Masonry, including brick and stucco structures, shall be maintained, and properly cleaned only when necessary to halt
deterioration or to remove stains and shall be done in a method acceptable for the preservation of the surface: i.e. low-pressure
water and soft natural bristle brushes. Brick or masonry mortar joints should be repointed only when there is evidence of
moisture problems, or when sufficient mortar is missing to allow water to stand in the mortar joint. Existing mortar shall be
duplicated in composition, color, texture, joint size, method of application and joint profile.
When repairing stucco, stucco mixture shall be used. A professional shall make a study of the old stucco, to determine the exact
mixture and underlayment used in the original work. Some repair methods are not compatible with the original techniques and
may cause early disintegration of the repair work and the original work.
Ample ventilation must be afforded the structure when siding is installed, in order to prevent increased deterioration of the
structure from moisture and insects.
Recommended
Whenever possible, the original building materials should be restored. When maintaining or repairing original siding is
not feasible, aluminum, vinyl or composite siding may be used. When used over wood surfaces, this siding should be the
same size and style as the original wood. Every effort should be made to retain the original trim around windows, doors,
cornices gables, eaves and other architectural features.
Property owners should contact the Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph County prior to initiating
any restoration or rehabilitation effort. [ Address and contact information is listed in the front of the Guidebook.] The
Commission is an invaluable source of information about all facets of rehabilitation and restoration — materials, methods,
contractors and the like.
Prohibited
Wood siding shall not be resurfaced with new materials that is inappropriate or was unavailable when the building was
constructed, such as artificial stone, brick veneer, asbestos or asphalt shingles.
Sandblasting or the use of harsh detergents shall not be used on masonry including brick, stucco, limestone, flagstone and
sandstone. This method of cleaning erodes the surface material and accelerates deterioration.
Repointing shall not be done with a mortar of high Portland cement content which can often create a bond that is stronger than
the building material. Usage of Portland cement can cause deterioration as a result of the differing coefficient of expansion and
porosity of the historic masonry unit and the mortar. This most often results in serious damage to adjacent brick.
Unpainted masonry surfaces shall not be painted unless they had been painted originally. Paint shall not be removed from
masonry surfaces by any means that damage the surface.
Not Recommended
Waterproof or water repellant coatings or surface consolidation treatments should not be used on masonry surfaces unless
required to solve a specific problem that has been studied and identified. Coatings are frequently unnecessary and expensive,
and can accelerate deterioration of the masonry. Mortar joints, which do not need repointing, should not be repointed. Wood
siding should not be power -washed.
B. ROOFS AND ROOFING
Roof shapes in the district encompass all the various designs found in residential structures: hipped, gabled, gambrel, flat and
combinations of these. Roofs are covered with a variety of materials such as asphalt, asbestos, wood and slate shingles as well
as clay tiles. Residences in most cases have wood fascias with gutters and downspouts. The fascias of some vinyl- and
aluminum -sided houses are covered with the same materials.
Required
The existing shape and type of materials of the roof shall be retained. All architectural features, which give the roof its essential
character, shall be retained, including dormer windows, cupolas, cornices, brackets, chimneys, cresting and weather vanes.
Recommended
The original shape and materials of the roof should be restored. Particular effort should be made to retain materials such as slate,
tile and other unique materials not commonly found in new construction. Roof covering which is deteriorated beyond repair
should be replaced with new material that matches as closely as possible the original in composition, size, shape, color and
texture. Gutters and downspouts are often a necessary adjunct in order to prevent deterioration of the structure; they should be
maintained whenever possible or replaced with a style comparable and suitable to the architectural period.
Prohibited
Nothing shall be done to change the essential character of the roof as viewed from a street by adding architectural features or
large unsightly fixtures, or by using materials inappropriate to the style of the house. The roof shall not be stripped of
architectural features important to its character.
Not Recommended
Overhanging eaves, soffit, brackets and gables should not be covered or enclosed when adding siding to a building.
C. WINDOWS AND DOORS
Window and door frames are in most cases wood and vary depending upon the style of the home. Many are double -hung
windows with wood trim and sills. Brick structures have stone sills and brick lintels. In some cases where aluminum siding has
been applied, the window and door trim has been covered. About half of the structures in the district have aluminum storm
windows; the other half have wood storm windows.
Required
Original windows and doors shall be retained including sashes, lintels, sills, shutters, decorative glass, pediments, hoods
and hardware. When deteriorated beyond repair, they shall be replaced with units and trim resembling the original.
Recommended
Wood storm windows and doors painted or finished to match the original should be used but should not damage existing
frames. If new sashes or doors are installed, the existing or original materials, design and hardware should be used.
When metal storm doors are used, they should be painted, anodized or coated to match the existing. When awnings are
used, they should be of canvas material.
D. ENTRANCES, PORCHES AND STEPS
Most houses in the district have either an open or enclosed porch across the front. Most porches have either hip or
gabled roofs or are covered by the main roof of the house.
Required
When deteriorated beyond repair, existing or original porches, stoops, patios and steps, including handrails, balusters,
columns, brackets, tiles and roof decorations, shall be retained or replaced by replicas of the same design or by a design
more in keeping with the historic period of the structure.
Porches and additions reflecting later architectural styles and which are important to the building's historical integrity
shall be retained.
Recommended
When enclosing porches for heat conservation or for other reasons, it should be done in a manner that does not alter the
architectural or historical character of the building.
Not Recommended
Original porch details should not be replaced with materials representing a different period or style from the original.
III. NEW CONSTRUCTION
New construction includes any new building or structure built within the boundaries of the historic district, or any new
addition to an existing building. New construction should be designed considering the appearance, scale, styles and
setbacks of the other buildings in the neighborhood. New work may be contemporary or may suggest motifs from
historic buildings in the district.
A. HEIGHT AND PROPORTION
The majority of the structures in the district are two stories in height and have square or rectangular plans. There are
several houses that have L- or T- shaped or rambling ground plans. There are a few single -story cottages and one- and
one -and -a -half story bungalows. The most prevalent facade proportions are between a 1:1 and 1:2 height to width ratio.
Required
The height of a new structure and its height to width proportions shall be consistent with adjacent buildings in the
district. The building height shall be no greater than that of the tallest existing structure and no less than that of the
lowest existing structure in the same block. Fagade proportion shall be established by permitting no structure with a
fagade wider or narrower than those existing in the same block. Additions to the existing buildings shall be related in
height and proportion to the existing structure.
Recommended
Design of new construction should be compatible in character and mood to the building or neighborhood.
Prohibited
Additions that would add new height or change the existing facade of a building, and change its scale and architectural
character shall not be considered.
Not Recommended
New stories should not be added nor existing stories be removed which would destroy important architectural details, features
and spaces of the building. Any style or period of architecture that is incompatible with the existing should not be permitted in
the new additions.
B. BUILDING MATERIALS
Wall materials in the district range from brick, stucco and wood clapboard and shingles, to aluminum, vinyl and
fiberboard / composite siding.
Required
Exterior materials used on a new structure shall be compatible in scale, texture and color (as pertains to masonry) with
adjacent structures. Materials used on an addition to an existing structure shall related to the existing or original
materials of that structure. Also, as much of the original structure as possible shall be retained so that the addition
could be removed without damage to the basic structure and appearance of the building.
Recommended
Alternative or composite siding may be used when it is the only feasible alternative. This siding should be compatible
with the original size and style and with the materials of other buildings in the district.
Prohibited
Inappropriate materials such as asbestos, asphalt, cast stone or artificial brick shall not be used.
Not Recommended
Glass blocks should not be used. Concrete block should not be used for anything other than the foundations.
STAFF RECOMM ENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the project as submitted, with the request that final window
and basement product selection be relegated to staff.
Prepared by
Adam Toering
Historic Preservation Specialist
Recommendation by
Elicia Feasel
Historic Preservation Administrator
PETITIONER COMMENTS:
Mr. Wallace expressed appreciation for the help and assistance of the HPC Staff throughout the process of purchasing and
addressing the many projects on the house.
Commissioner Fisher asked about basement access.
Mrs. Wallace explained the small size of the kitchen area, necessitating expanding onto the rear porch. The existing external
basement stairs will be covered, one of the porch stairs will be removed. Window relocation and replacement was
discussed.
Commissioner Fisher asked about the detail spindling.
Mr. Wallace expressed their desire to reuse the spindling somewhere on the house.
Specialist Toering explained that the front porch footprint was changed significantly, indicating that the current configuration
doesn't have much of the original detail, including spindling.
Commissioners Molnar and Fisher expressed gratification that a new owner was in possession of the house.
Commissioner Hertel asked about the extensive site plan and landscape changes, as evidenced by the site plan included in the
packet.
Staff explained that those projects were administratively approved.
Mr. Wallace spoke about the fence line change.
Staff explained that multiple projects were administratively approved, including window repair, brick chimney work.
Mr. Wallace spoke about the trim and woodwork repair work that will be coming soon, including the attic window, as
discovered by a 1940 photograph found in the HPC archives.
Specialist Toering apologized for not including the photo in the packet, and explained to the Commission that they will be
seeing the Wallaces often as there are many projects.
COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Hertel expressed support, with the conditions that Staff be remanded the authority to approve the hatch door,
windows.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION: N/A
Commissioner Annis made a motion to approve COA#2019-0603C as submitted with
condition that the final window and basement product selection be relegated to
staff. Seconded by Commissioner Molnar.
Six in favor, none opposed.
Vote: 6 — 0. Motion to approve COA #2019-0603C is passed.
6. 1402 E Wayne Street #2019-0603D #7796-77 East Wayne Street Local
Historic District
Representation: Barbara Brooke, 1402 E Wayne Street, South Bend, IN
Dylan Risser, Quality Window and Doors, 27888 Co Rd 32, Elkhart, IN
STAFF REPORT
CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR A
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
Date: June 5, 2019
Application Number: 2019-0603D
Property Location: 1402 East Wayne Street
Architectural Style/Date/Architect or Builder: Modem/I956/Cooper House
Property Owner: Barbara Brook
Landmark or District Designation: East Wayne Street, Ordinance #7796-87
Rating: Non-contributing
DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURE/ SITE: Two story wood frame Modem house with L -plan with one story attached garage.
Roof is a low gable with asphalt shingles. Windows are primarily original wood divide lite casement. There is a central entry
with flat roof and concrete slab. Faqade is brick on 1st story, wood on 2nd.
ALTERATIONS: RME 2011-0722 replaced a concrete patio in rear of house, in-kind. RME 2011-0701 removed a dead
dogwood tree and replacement. RME 2003-0616 installed furnace vent PVC pipe and installed metal chimney cap. COA 2001-
0725 approved replacement of four windows in back of house with new wooden casement windows and picture window -
casement combinations, manufactured to exactly match the windows in the front portion of the house. RME 2001-0622 replaced
asphalt roof, in-kind.
APPLICATION ITEMS: "Replacement windows, See attachments for material descriptions"
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT: Owner has applied for seventeen (17) original wood windows to be replaced
with Infinity by Marvin Fibrex extruded fiberglass exterior/wood interior windows. The windows proposed to be replaced are
on the first and second stories of the house.
Heritage Construction Co., Inc. and HPC Preservation Inspector have concluded that the original wood casement windows are
beyond repair, please see respective letters for details.
The proposed windows will be inserts, utilizing the existing jamb which commonly results in a slight reduction to the amount of
glazing overall. The window pane pattern will be replicated for each window using 7/8" simulated divided lites on the exterior
and interior with a spacer bar in between the glass providing dimension resembling the original. Color selection is Cashmere
which matches painted details on the house. Exterior trim is proposed to be wrapped with an aluminum coil stock that will wrap
the exterior trim of the windows with mitered joints. Quality Window and Door representative has confirmed that the stone sill
on the first floor will not be wrapped and the coil would terminate at the wood. With a replicated pane pattern and simulated
divided light, the fiberglass windows resemble the original aesthetic.
PRESERVATION INSPECTOR REPORT:
On April 30, 2019 I met with the property owner on site to photograph and evaluate the condition of the windows at
the property. For the sake of ease, I will list the windows and each side of the house then state the overall condition and cite
examples. All windows are of wood construction except where noted.
North Face front side
First floor 2- Combination 4 pane casement -picture -4 pane casement windows
Second floor 3- Double 4 pane casement windows
East Face (garage side
First floor 1- Double 3 pane casement window on garage
1- Double 4 pane casement window
Second floor 1- Double 2 pane casement window
1- Double 4 pane casement window
South Face rear side
First floor 1- Combination 4 pane casement -picture -4 pane casement window -wood clad replacement
1- Single casement window -wood clad replacement
1- Double casement window -wood clad replacement
1- Double 3 pane casement window on garage
Second Floor 1- Double 4 pane casement window
West Face
First floor 2- Double 4 pane casement window
1- Combination 4 pane casement -picture -4 pane casement window -wood clad replacement
Second floor 1- Double 4 pane casement window
Overall assessment; the original wood casement windows are non -repairable.
-The addition of interior storms has allowed moisture to become trapped against the wooden elements causing deterioration and
the sashes to become out of square. The photo of the front combination window demonstrates a crowning effect on the bottom
sill plate.
-The sills on the west and north sides are soft to the touch. Multiple layers of paint but little caulk have allowed moisture to
become trapped and rotting the wood out from the inside
-Several closure and locking mechanisms on these windows are non-operable. Replacement parts may be difficult to obtain and
replace.
The owner informed me that the wood clad replacement windows in back were installed prior to the LHD designation and were
installed to replace the Jalousie or louvered original windows. The existing windows are in good shape and she does not intend
to replace them.
Steve Szaday
Preservation Inspector
STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES: EAST WAYNE STREET
IV. EXISTING STRUCTURES
A. WINDOWS AND DOORS
Window and door frames are of wood or steel (some casements) or in the case of brick structures, stone sills and brick lintels.
Where metal or vinyl siding has been applied, window trim has been covered. Storm windows are of wood and aluminum.
Required
Original windows and doors shall be retained including sashes, lintels, sills, shutters, decorative glass, pediments, hoods,
and hardware. When deteriorated beyond repair, they shall be replaced with units and trim resembling the original
Recommended
Wood frame storm windows and doors painted to match the original should not be used but should not damage existing frames.
If new sashes or doors are installed, the existing or original materials, design, and hardware should be used. When metal storm
doors are used they should be painted, anodized or coated to match the existing. When awnings are used they should be of
canvas material.
Prohibited
Original doors, windows, and hardware shall not be discarded when they can be restored and used in place. New window and
door openings which would alter the scale and proportion of the building shall not be introduced. Inappropriate new windows
and door features such as aluminum insulating glass combinations that require removal of the original windows and doors shall
not be installed.
Not Recommended
Awnings, hoods, and fake shutters made of metal, vinyl, or fiberglass should not be used if they would detract from the existing
character or appearance of the building
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:.. With the house having a non-contributing rating, along with the original windows deemed
deteriorated beyond repair, and the proposed replacements resembling the original, per the Standards for East Wayne Street
Local Historic District, Staff recommends approval.
Report compiled by
Elicia Feasel, Historic Preservation Administrator
Administrator Feasel clarified that the following corrections to the description should be noted, specifically that the application
is for the replacement of twelve original windows with fiberglass windows by Marvin.
PETITIONER COMMENTS:
Ms. Brooks explained her reasons for coming forward with an application, and her selection of Quality Window & Door.
Commissioner Molnar questioned the selection of fiberglass.
Administrator Feasel expressed that Staff is curious about fiberglass, and has been looking forward to seeing projects using
these products in lieu of vinyl, especially considering the lack of long-term survivability of new wood windows
(because of the loss of old-growth wood). Indiana Landmarks has used this product.
Commissioner Fisher asked why we weren't talking about a fiberglass -wood product.
Mr. Risser spoke about the differences between the Infinity and the Integrity product lines, the Infinity is made to give more
visibility so you don't lose as much daylight, and the divided lite size can be replicated. The divided lite pattern can
be replicated.
Commissioner Fisher asked about the operability, do they operate as the same the existing windows?
Mr. Risser explained they do operate the same as the existing casement windows.
Commissioner Fisher asked about paint chipping.
Mr. Risser explained that the product does not chip, as the color is part of the product. The color is a lifetime product.
Commissioner Fisher asked about the simulated divided lite.
Mr. Risser described the construction of the product, with components on both sides of the window, as well as between the
panes of glass.
Commissioner Molnar asked Administrator Feasel to explain the non-contributing rating.
Administrator Feasel explained that at the time of the survey in 2005, the house was about 50 years old, and for whatever reason
it was not considered contributing to the fabric of the neighborhood. Administrator Feasel corroborated the
statements by the regular contractor who has cared for and maintained these windows, Inspector Szaday's site visit
with a separate but same assessment, and the new product selected that led Staff to support the approval of the
replacement of the windows.
COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Fisher expressed support, and curiosity about the new product.
Commissioner Molnar expressed support and appreciation for consistent maintenance.
Commissioner Ponder expressed that this was the `easiest window to date.'
Ms. Brooks expressed thanks and her happiness at being the second owner of the house.
Administrator Feasel requested that we get updates from the property owner as to how the product holds up.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION: N/A
Commissioner Ponder made a motion to approve COA#2019-0603D to approve the
application as amended and asks that the homeowner provide feedback on the
product in the coming years. Seconded by Commissioner Hertel.
Six in favor, none opposed.
Vote: 6 — 0. Motion to approve COA #2019-0603D is passed.
IV. PRIVILIGE OF THE FLOOR
V. REGULAR BUSINESS
A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
B. STAFF REPORTS
1. Administrative Approvals
COMMISSIONER GELFMAN LEFT THE MEETING AT 7:18PM,
C. COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. Disposition of Historic Preservation Assets
a. Committee Chair Fisher provided an update to the Commission as a
whole, including:
i. The Committee met on 5/2/2019.
ii. Digitization is ongoing.
iii. A list of items needs to be generated on items that need to be
dispossessed.
iv. The Committee made votes on the following:
1. Books to be given to the Library for first right of refusal.
2. Newspapers were tabled,
3. Photo Negatives to be offered to the Saint Joseph County
Public Library
4. Unwanted computer technology to the St. Joseph County IT
Department
COMMISSIONER GELFMAN REJOINED THE MEETING AT 7:22PM
Commissioner Hertel made a motion to accept the minutes from the
meeting and approve the actions of the Committee. Commissioner Ponder
seconded.
Six in favor, none opposed.
Vote: 6 — 0. Motion to approve the actions of the Disposition of the Historic
Preservation Assets as a whole is approved.
2. Standards Update
a. Committee Chair Feasel provided an update as to the timeline of the
actions for the Standards Update Committee, namely:
i. A meeting of the Committee will be scheduled in July or August
ii. Staff envisions that Standards work will not be executed before the
end of the calendar year,
iii. Staff is working with Indiana Landmarks, who hopes to have a
template that can be distributed statewide.
iv. Todd Zeiger is planning to integrate his Notre Dame Architecture
students to help with this process.
v. 2020 Budget allotments are being investigated to assist with this next
year.
VI. OLD BUSINESS
A. Lead Standards have been distributed to all Commission members.
Commissioner Hertel asked if we could expand the section to include other hazards.
B. Commissioner Gelfman inquired about the progress of the moving the ancillary
structure at 326 Marion.
1. Commissioner Hertel expressed concerns regarding the reapplication of projects
that are not completed.
2. Staff lamented that the approval of the project related to 322 Marion was a
`blanket' approval in September of 2018.
3. Specialist Toering expressed to the Commission members the need and
importance of making an explicit motion, as `blanket' approvals will be legally
considered to be approvals of the project as submitted by the applicant.
VII. NEW BUSINESS
VIII. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS
A. Architectural Historian Greta Fisher is announcing that she will be resigning from
her position as the Architectural Historian because of time constraints due to her
new position as the Executive Director of the Casaday Costume Company.
1. Commissioner Hertel, Commissioner Gelfman, and Commissioner Molnar all
expressed sadness at the departure of Commissioner Fisher from the
Commission.
2. Commissioner Fisher stated her intent to facilitate the transition of assets from
the Historic Preservation Commission to the Library, with the hope of
addressing this sometime in early July.
B. Historic Preservation Specialist Toering explained that he and his wife are in the
process of working on their 1912 house at the NE corner of Notre Dame and Wayne
Street. Currently they are in the process of `unveiling' the original siding beneath of
aluminum siding. Commissioners are encouraged to stop by and see the process as
it happens.
C. Historic Preservation Administrator Feasel informed the Commission of the Staff's
newest intern, Abigail Meckstroth.
D. Commissioner Eric Stalheim is in Trinidad and Tobago doing site evaluation work
of historic sites.
E. Administrator Feasel brought forward that we will be lacking a Secretary and
Assistant Secretary position.
1. Commission President Gelfinan appointed Commissioner Ponder as the
Secretary.
2. Commission President Gelfman appointed Commissioner Annis as the Assistant
Secretary.
F. Commissioner Hertel asked what Commissioner Fisher's departure means for
quorum. Administrator Feasel explained that we are awaiting a pending
appointment to the Commission by the City of South Bend.
G. Commissioner Molnar asked about the process to select and appoint a new
Architectural Historian to fill Commissioner Fisher's vacancy.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Hertel made a motion to adjourn. Seconded by Commissioner Ponder.
Six in favor, none opposed.
Vote: 6 — 0. Meeting adjourned at 7:54 pm.
Attest:
-7° 15 L9
Sarah Ponder, Secretary Date