HomeMy WebLinkAboutHistoric Preservation Commission Meeting Signed Minutes - June 15, 2020MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
OF SOUTH BEND AND ST. JOSEPH COUNTY
June 15"', 2020
County — City Building
4" Floor Council Chambers
South Bend, IN 46601
I. CALL TO ORDER
Commission President Michele Gelfman called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m.
Members of the Public Present:
Jonathan Cook, 63460 Orange Road, South Bend, IN 46614
Chuck Lehman, 510 Lincoln Way East, Mishawaka IN
Brian Harding, 1515 East Washington, South Bend, IN
Travis Childs, 1915 Altgeld Street, South Bend, IN 46614
Kristie Erickson, 3806 2B Appaloosa Lane, South Bend, IN 46628
Allyssa Gavin, 1208-2A Hidden Lakes Drive, Mishawaka, IN 46544
Emilia Shaffer, 1515 East Wayne Street, South Bend, IN
James Shaffer, 1515 East Wayne Street, South Bend, IN
Ricardo Nevarez, 617-619 Cushing Street, South Bend, IN
Julie Storme, 1614 East Wayne Street, South Bend, IN
Daniel Tychonivich, 54548 White Tail Drive, Mishawaka, IN
Louise Arsenault, 838 Park Avenue, South Bend, IN
Clay Harris, 317 Tonti Street, South Bend, IN
Timothy Lykowski, 23158 West Ireland Road, South Bend, IN
Marilyn Thompson, 17313 Farmington Square Road, Granger, IN
John Charles Bryant, 707 North Harrison Street, South Bend, NI
Ken Cencelewski, 705 South 31'` Street, South Bend, IN
Lillian Magers-Pershing, 20326 Ozone Street, South Bend, IN
Joseph Giczi, 16780 Hidden Valley Drive, Granger, IN
II. ROLL CALL
Members Present: Michele Gelfman, President; Sarah Andrews, Secretary; Eric Stalheim;
John Tiffany; Patrick Deegan; Joan Downs-Krostenko, Architectural Historian.
Members Not in Attendance: Elizabeth Hertel, Vice President; Mary Brazinsky
Staff Present: Elicia Feasel, Historic Preservation Administrator; Adam Toering, Historic
Preservation Specialist; Ross Van Overberghe, Site Inspector; Sandra Kennedy, Legal
Counsel.
Staff Not in Attendance: N/A
III. PUBLIC HEARING
A. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
1. 713 West LaSalle Avenue #2020-0224 #7858-88 Local
Landmark, West LaSalle National Register District
Representation: N/A
WITHDRAWN
Administrator Feasel clarified that this project was withdrawn because the applicant is
bidding the project out without the Jamb -liner option that was previously discussed.
The project may qualify for Administrative Approval.
2. 617-619 Cushing Street #2020-0224A #8142-90 Local
Landmark
Representation: Ricardo Nevarez, 2913 Mishawaka Avenue, South Bend, IN
STAFF REPORT
CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR A
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
Date: March 9, 2020
Application Number: 2020-0224A
Property Location: 617-619 North Cushing
Architectural Style/Date/Architect or Builder: Gabled-ell/Stick / 1892
Property Owner: Avnis LLC
Landmark or District Designation: Local Landmark, Ordinance #8142-90
Rating: Outstanding
DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURE/SITE: Main structure is a two-story irregular plan Gabled -ell house in the stick style on a
brick foundation (that was previously covered in stucco). Wood clapboard siding with decorative square panels and jigsaw
shingles. Asphalt shingle roof with centrally mounted brick chimney. Gabled dormers with decorated rakeboards, molded
wood eaves and rake, and a plain frieze. The front entry porch adds distinctive styling, the side entrance has a unique canopy
with fan -decorated semicircular brackets. Windows were originally 1 -over -1 double hung with plain wood jambs and sills and
decorated wood entablatures; many windows are now vinyl replacements.
617 Cushing stands to the rear of the main house closer to the alley and was possibly originally an outbuilding. It is a one and a
half story structure with a brick foundation and a centrally mounted chimney. Originally sided in wood, it is now covered in
vinyl. Windows are a mix of original wood one -over -one double hung, casements, and replacement vinyl windows.
ALTERATIONS: Both properties have been extensively modified over the course over the last century. Windows have been
replaced in both structures (without COA); 617 Cushing had vinyl siding installed over the original siding. AA 2019-0517
approved a number of projects on the exterior of both structures which have not been completed (removal and reconstruction of
chimneys, foundation work, tree removal, landscaping improvements, and the removal of the exterior stair well). AA 2019-
1023 allowed for the removal and re -roofing of the asphalt shingle roof, as well as the installation of new gutters and
downspouts.
APPLICATION ITEMS: "Take oJf North west back entry door. Seal and replace with wood siding. Change vinyl kitchen
window above the sink, lake off back entty door and replace by sliding patio door and build a wood deck 10'x 8' with stairs
lowards the backyard. Fix basement hatch exterior entry door, make it f:ahctional and safe for use. "
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSLD PROJECT: Applicant seeks a Certificate of Appropriateness for changes on the structure:
4- Remove exterior entrance door at northwest corner of house. Side over with wood siding to match the existing
reveal and dimensions.
Remove vinyl kitchen window on rear facade, replace with new JELD-WEN `Better Series' 24 %+" W x 38" H
vinyl single hung window in white. Replace siding as needed, matching existing reveal and dimensions.
Retroactively remove rear entrance door, widen opening, and replace with JELD-WEN Builders series 60" x 80"
Vinyl Left Hand Sliding Patio Door. Trim and repair siding to match original.
4. Construct new 10' x 8' patio outside rear entrance with pressure treated #I Thick Deck Board.
5, Reconstruct existing basement access hatch.
Late 19`h century structures often had multiple front entrances (leading to some being labeled as `coffin doors' or `funeral doors'
as they were supposedly installed to allow coffins to be brought into and removed from a house without navigating tight turns or
corners). Historic record indicates this structure has long existed as a multi -family house with multiple units, necessitating
multiple entrances. This is reflected in the property history and 1932 Assessor Cards.
The applicant seeks to convert this property into a single-family dwelling. The property previously had five entrances (three on
the front fagade, one on the rear primary fagade, and one at the northwest comer of the of the rear fagade). Removing the
additional entrance on the north side of the rear of the property will minimally change the aesthetics of the property.
Many of the windows on this structure have been replaced. Replacing the replacement vinyl window with a new vinyl window
is not necessarily an improvement in aesthetics or quality. Staff wishes the original windows were still on the structure.
Replacing the non -original replacement door with the vinyl slider (and increasing the opening size) is a significant change to the
rear fagade. This – and the construction of the treated lumber rear porch – can be considered anachronistic to the original
features of the house. Other Landmark properties have seen the addition of rear slider doors, most recently on Park Avenue in
Chapin Park.
Reconstructing the rear basement hatch would be appropriate for Administrative Approval. Staff offers no objection
SITE VISIT REPORT: N/A
STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES: Local Landmark "Group B"
The Commission has the authority to determine the architectural merits and the extent of any proposed treatment, renovation, or
addition to a historic landmark. The commission will require drawings, plans, specifications, and/or samples where appropriate.
A. Maintenance
The maintenance of any historical structure or site shall in no way involve any direct physical change except for the
general cleaning and upkeep of the landmark. The Commission shall encourage the proper maintenance of all
structure or sites.
B. Treatment
Treatment shall be defined as any change of surface materials that will not alter the style or original form.
Such improvements include re -roofing, glazing, or landscaping lawns 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. Although these kinds of changes may not require a Building Permit, a Certificate
of Appropriateness may be necessary. The commission should review the proposed treatment for character
and style consistency with the original surfaces.
C. Renovation and Additions
Renovation is the modification of a structure, which does not alter the general massing while an addition, is a
change in mass. A modification, which involves the removal of a part of the landmark, should be considered under
demolition (see demolition).
Additions to landmarks should not detract from the original form and unity of the landmark and should not cover
singular examples of architectural detail. Additions to landmarks should be added in a manner that does not disrupt
the visible unity of overall appearance of the site. The proportions, materials and ratios of the existing structures
should be carried through in the additions. Care should be taken not to change or alter the following:
1. Structure—Necessary structural improvements, where safety demands should be accomplished in such a
way as to cause minimal visual change to the original style and construction.
2. Material—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.
a. wood—all wood trim should conform with existing trim in shape and size.
b. siding materials—the Commission discourages the covering or alteration of original materials
with additional siding. Structures already sided with incompatible materials should be returned to
a siding similar to the original when renovation is considered.
D. Demolition
Historic landmarks shall not be demolished. When a landmark poses a threat to the public safety, and demolition is
the only alternative, documentation by way of photographs, measured drawings, or other descriptive methods should
be made of both the exterior and interior of the landmark. The person or agency responsible for demolition of the
landmark shall be responsible for this documentation.
E. Moving
The moving of landmarks is discouraged, however, moving is preferred to demolition. When moving is necessary,
the owner of the landmark must apply to the Commission for a Certificate of Appropriateness.
F. Signs
No neon or flashing signs will be permitted unless they are original to the structure. Billboards and super -graphics
will also be disallowed. Only one appropriate identifying sign will be permitted per business.
G. Building Site and Landscaping (These standards apply to both A and B)
1. Required
Major landscaping items, trees, fencing, walkways, private yard lights, signs (house numbers) and benches which
reflect the property's history and development shall be retained. Dominant land contours shall be retained.
Structures such as: gazebos, patio decks, fixed barbecue pits, swimming pools, tennis courts, green houses, new
walls, fountains, fixed garden furniture, trellises, and other similar structures shall be compatible to the
historic character of the site and neighborhood and inconspicuous when viewed from a public way.
2. Recommended
New site work should be based upon actual knowledge of the past appearance of the property found in photographs,
drawings, and newspapers. Plant materials and trees in close proximity to the building that are causing deterioration
to the buildings historic fabric should be removed. However, trees and plant materials that must be removed should
be immediately replaced by suitable flora. Front yard areas should not be fenced except in cases where historic
documentation would indicate such fencing appropriate. Fencing should be in character with the buildings style,
materials, and scale.
3. Prohibited
No changes may be made to the appearance of the site by removing major landscaping items, trees, fencing,
walkways, outbuildings, and other elements before evaluating their importance to the property's history and
development. Front yard areas shall not be transformed into parking lots nor paved nor blacktopped. The installation
of unsightly devices such as TV reception dishes and solar collectors shall not be permitted in areas where they can be
viewed from public thoroughfares.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval.
Prepared by
Adam Toering
Historic Preservation Specialist
Approved by
Elicia Feasel
Historic Preservation Administrator
PETITIONER COMMENTS:
Commissioner Andrews asked about the previous approval regarding the multiple doors on the front
facade.
Specialist Toering clarified that the previous approval allowed for the removal of one of the three doors
on the front fagade, that a second door was retained but is non-functional, and that the third door
is the primary entrance.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko asked for clarification regarding the sequence of the replacement of
the doors and windows to the rear of the property and stated that the sliding door is anachronistic
to the style of the house. She asked for clarification on the rear deck as to whether there would
be a railing or not.
Mr. Nevarez stated that the installed material was the same as what was already present on the house,
and that the rear deck was low enough to not require a railing.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko asked if the project could be broken apart to approve or deny
individual components.
Commissioner Gelfinan stated that the project could be broken apart if the Commission desired to do so,
but that she had visited the house, and that the vinyl and sliding door were at the rear of the
house.
Commissioner Stalheim agreed and noted that the entirety of the windows of the house are vinyl, and
that it is at least uniform.
Commissioner Andrews stated that although vinyl isn't her preference, at least these alterations are at the
rear of the house.
Commissioner Tiffany stated he was familiar with this house and that it has been improved.
Commissioner Deegan agreed.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION:
Mr. Nevarez clarified that vinyl was selected because vinyl was already installed everywhere else on the
house.
Commissioner Stalheim motioned to approve COA #2020-0224A as presented. Seconded by
Commissioner Andrews.
Five in favor, one opposed.
Vote: 5 —1. Motion to approve COA #2020-0224A passes.
3. 907 Riverside Drive #2020-0302 #8734-96 Local
Landmark, National Register of Historic Places
Representation: Brian Harding, 1515 East Washington Street, South Bend, IN
Kristie Erickson, 3806-2B Appaloosa Lane, South Bend, IN
STAFF REPORT
CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR A
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
Date: 9 March, 2020
Application Number: 2020-0302
Property Location: Leeper Park
Architectural Style/Date/Architect or Builder: Planned landscape/I897/City superintendent Herman Beyer; Landscape
Architect George Kessler
Property Owner: City of South Bend, Venues Parks & Arts
Landmark or District Designation: Local Landscape Landmark, Ordinance #8734-96 and National Register of Historic
Places, 6/15/2000
Rating: Onlslanding
DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURE/ SITE: Leeper Park is the first planned public park in South Bend located north of
downtown and the medical district. Leeper Park is oriented east/west at the St. Joseph River, divided into three sections, East,
Central, and West, by Michigan Street and Lafayette Boulevard. The Eastern section was originally established for the Water
Works with the first construction on site being a network of thirty, six-inch artesian wells.' "The first land condemned for the
future Leeper Park, in June of 1895, was meant to provide a second artesian well field and pumping facility for the lively
industries and town population which was growing along the south bend of the St. Joseph River."'- City superintendent Herman
Beyer first influenced the design including curvilinear paths, plantings, and water features. The 1911-1915 Parks and Boulevard
system and the Leeper Park Plan, designed by celebrated planner and landscape architect George Kessler, embodied early
twentieth century ideals grounded in the City Beautiful movement, connecting parks and boulevards as planned elements of a
coordinated city plan. Kessler's Plan for Leeper Park included both formal and informal design elements, adopting existing park
features of the Beyer era through a skillful remodel. The association of the park sections with different uses was a result of
Kessler's planning; the West section was deemed for active recreation, the Central section as passive recreation, and the Eastern
Section was adopted for its function as a Water Works but also boasts a number of recreation -related features. While the Kessler
Plan guided Leeper Park development for the next decade, documentary evidence appears that only some elements of the
Kessler design were actually installed.3 Sensitive extensions of Kessler's Plan continued into the 1920s and 1930s and included
Works Progress Administration funded labor for several projects.'
Leeper Park East features include: the North Pumping Station, the water reservoir, multiple water well pumps, Ziegler
Performing Center with fixed bench seating, signage for the former Garden of Fragrance, the Navarre Cabin, the foundation of
' Luper Park Cultural Landscape Rmirt, prepared by Westerly Group for the Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph
County,
May 1998.
'- Ibid.
' Ibid.
4 Malcolm Cairns, ASLA. "Leeper Park Historic District." National Register of Historic Places Inventory/Nomination Form, NR -1411. South Bend,
St. Joseph County, Indiana, June 15, 2000.
the former Powell House, a non-functioning Comfort Station, a swing set/slide, the Sunken (Rose) Garden, the island, and the
Works Progress Administration retaining wall and a bridge to the island.
Leeper Park Central features include: concrete stairs on embankment, a well house, the Edward B. Reynolds fountain, Lavender
Labyrinth, memorials including trees, stones, and plaques. The Commission approved river overlook is under construction at
this time.
Leeper Park West features include: backdrop of the former baseball diamond, tennis courts, a recreation building, a parking lot,
an odor garden, and raised vegetable gardens with adjoining paths.
ALTERATIONS:
Throughout
COA 2019-0402 approved conditionally 1. Lighting, with condition of staff approval 2. Sign locations, not sign design 3.
Furnishings and Garden Ornaments with exception of the backed, non -custom metal benches around the fountain to
be the backless benches, only 4. Planting Design.
COA 2019-0109 approved conditionally 1. Pedestrian circulation improvements and pathways, with condition of staff approval
over memorials and landscaping 2. New playground 3. Studebaker Fountain and associated gathering place 4.
Removal of Duck Pond, with condition that "reseed the lawn" is not approved but instead requires a plan be submitted
to the Commission to interpret the Duck Pond in another way 5. Concept of a formal river overlook with final design
to be approved by Commission.
RMEs and COAs for tree trimming, removal, and installation have been approved under the guidance of the City Forester.
RMEs and COAs for sidewalks have been approved.
Leeper Park East
RME 2017-0410 approved "This permit covers only Phase I of the project - drilling a pilot well. Phase 11 (drilling the actual
well and trenching in the piping) will require a separate COA."
COA 2017-0306 approved installation of new stage and new audience seating, landscape beautification and lighting for stage,
new benches with concrete pad closer to stage.
RME 2016-1013 approved removal of brush and planting of willow tree near Rose Garden.
The Sunken (Rose) Garden with reflecting pool and statuaries were removed in the 1960s. RME 2017-1012 approved
installation of two small concrete pads with two benches adjacent to Rose Garden. Benches to match those approved
through COA 2015-0302A. COA 2017-0228 approved installation of 8' wide crushed limestone walkway connecting
the Michigan Street sidewalk with the Sunken Garden, bounded by two, 42" wide flower beds, and irrigation system
for entire garden. COA 2015-1002 approved "Within an existing concrete curb (that will remain), the landscaping bed
will be enhanced to mimic the reflecting pool fonnerly within its boundary. New flower beds will be defined using
new soil, compost and plantings. A walkway of crushed limestone will pass through the beds. Additional half circle
beds will be added to the north and south of the concrete curb. The "three -fates" statues will be repaired pro-bono by a
local artist, and then placed into the center of the "pool" bed, where they were originally, in the same back -to -back -to
back style; and the one remaining "cherub" will be nearby, on a footing. That "cherub" will be duplicated from the
original, and the new statue also placed nearby in the "pool" bed." COA 2015-0504A approved restoration of Rose
Garden and gravel path system by volunteers.
COA 2015-0908 approved "Bartlett Street Roundabout Project Description (114-032b). Project to construct a roundabout at
Bartlett and Michigan Street approved per all diagrams and documents submitted. Encroachment to Leeper Park East
will be limited to 0.57 acres and all trees removed will be replaced within the park."
The Garden of Fragrance no longer exists, but the signage remains. RME 2015-0422 approved "Rebuild/restack low retaining
wall currently located in Leeper Park next to Garden for the Blind. Matching flagstone has been donated by Knepp
Sand and Stone and Old Fort Building Supply; and follows material estimate made by a representative of the SB Parks
Department. The restacking of the flagstone wall will also require digging away the dirt around loose blocks and
backfilling afterwards."
COA 2011-1103A approved "Replace the existing lift station on the south side of the North Pumping Station driveway and
relocate it to the north side of the driveway. Screen the new location with landscaping and plantings. Rehabilitate the
Garden of Fragrance Braille marker and boulder monument and install new sidewalks and decorative paving. All per
diagrams, plans and plant palette submitted and approved."
Wading Pool was filled in and the pergola removed, 1970s.
Circa 1862 vernacular Powell House
Navarre Cabin moved to Leeper Park, 1904; relocated, 1916; relocated again to present site, 1954. Restored 2005-2006.
Zoo closed and structures used for animals demolished, 1913.
Leeper Park Central
COA 2019-0806 approved the "Construction of a new river overlook in Leeper Park", with the conditions regarding the
installation of the railings at the overlook, the bench designs, lighting at the overlook, and railings along the stairs.
COA 2017-0213B approved "Addition to Leeper Park of a garden labyrinth, 40'-0" diameter center, 80'-0" diameter outer circle
per submitted plans. Includes removal and replacement of existing trees specified in plans; removal of DAR
memorial tree NOT PERMITTED."
COA 2013-0519 approved "Install a climber and merry-go-round at Leeper Park playground. (Replaces old pieces which were
removed.)"
The Mall/Formal Garden, an elongated adaptation of the Kessler design survived well into the 1960s. The Garden and
pedestrian walks became grown over, 1980s.
Tennis courts moved from Central to Eastern section, 1916.
1905 Bugbee Fountain removed, unknown date.
1907-08 East Lagoon (Lily Pond) became stagnant and was removed along with the rustic wooden bridge, unknown date.
1907-08 West Lagoon (Duck Pond) was extensively remodeled including a change in configuration from a naturalized shape to
a near oval, 1980s and 1990s. The covered shelter and chain link fence are not original.
Only remnants of a path system were recorded by WPA, 1938.
1910 Reynold's horse watering trough, relocated from downtown South Bend, 1937.
Fill added and installation of double flight of concrete steps along west bank of West Lagoon, 1916.
Carriage drives redesigned, unknown date.
Leeper Park West
COA 2015-0302A approved "Create a Garden in four sections totaling about 3000 sf including all plants; include an 8 foot wide
ADA standard concrete sidewalk -initially 500 feet long; one monument circle and 2 flanking garden
observation/education pads to be added per diagram submitted. Install 8 +/- historic lights of the style of Leeper Park
East to be installed along the 8 foot wide walk: 1 on each side of the 3 bump outs along the walk, 1 close to Lafayette
and 1 close to the northwest corner end of the current phase of the walkway. 8 +/- durable quality public benches; 4+/ -
umbrella tables near tennis court; opportunities for public art along the garden walk. Subject to approval by the Parks
Board. All the garden plant and vegetable plant options to be agreed upon by Parks Department/Board, Madison
School and HPC Staff to conform to the Standards and Guidelines adopted for Leeper Park. Abstain from planting
fruit trees at this time."
COA 2008-0306 approved installation of an "Odor Garden" with blower piping and underground odor control bed to treat sewer
gas. Surface odor control bed planted as flower garden. Area will be restored to grass if and when the system is taken
out of service.
COA 2007-0605B approved "Renovation of Tennis Courts, Pavement and Fence replacement, expansion of Court pavement
approximately 20' to South; removal of 17 trees in the South per Brent Thompson and replace with 12 Cypress per
Brent Thompson. Plant to the north of the fence 5 deciduous trees."
A parking lot south of the Tennis Center was added during the Madison School renovation along with lighting without COA,
1998.
The 1936 WPA shelter house was replaced with the present recreation building, 1970.
Fill added for installation of Riverside Drive, 1910 and 1938.
APPLICATION ITEMS: "Cabin to be relocated to the museum's west campus as part of larger interpretive site. See
attached plan for details. "
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT: The Northern Indiana Historical Society (NIHS, also known as The History
Museum) has applied to remove the Navarre Cabin from Leeper Park East and move it to the museum's campus.
a. The Cabin will be removed from the current location by Lykowski Construction:
i. The Cabin will be lifted up and transported off-site,
ii. The piers will be disassembled for reuse at the new location.
b. The site will be graded and reseeded, including:
i. The removal / filling in of the pier foundations,
ii. The removal / filling in of the interpretive burn pits,
iii. The removal / grading of the small sections of stone wall,
iv. The removal/ filling in of the disused pioneer herb garden,
The cabin colloquially known as the "Pierre Navarre Cabin" originally stood on the north side of the river somewhere west of
what is now Michigan Street Bridge; it was moved to Leeper Park in 1904, only to be moved/repositioned within the park in
1916. The cabin was again moved and refurbished in 1954. The Common Council of South Bend passed a resolution in 1988
establishing the cabin as an honorary landmark as part of the Hoosier Celebration '88 activities; a few years later in 1996 the
Common Council passed an ordinance formally adopting the entirety of Leeper Park as a Local Landmark.
Leeper Park was added to the Indiana State Register of Historic Places in April of 1999 and the National Register of Historic
Places in June of 2000, where the Navarre Cabin is indicated as Building `134' in the nomination form. The structure was rated
Outstanding in the most recent City of South Bend Historic Sites and Structures Inventory.
In 2005, The History Museum partnered with the Historic Preservation Commission and Historic Landmarks Foundation of
Indiana (now Indiana Landmarks) to pursue funding assistance from the Indiana Department of Natural Resources to facilitate
the structure's rehabilitation. The National Parks Service furnished $41,000 through the `Historic Preservation Fund', with the
remainder of monies being raised by The History Museum through fundraising. The cabin was eligible for this Federal funding
because of its status as an included asset within the National Register listed Leeper Park. As a condition of the funding, the
state maintained an internal and external easement on the structure from 2005 until its expiration in 2015.
National Register listing is often the key to unlocking the few funding opportunities that are available related to Historic
Preservation efforts. Moving the structure from Leeper Park will nullify the existing status (see Title 36: Parks, Forest, and
Public Property, Part 60—National Register of Historic Places, §60.14 'Changes and revisions to properties listed in the
National Register'), as well as potentially preclude the structure's future eligibility for re -inclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places. The structure's new location is within the West Washington National Register District. Were the structure to
be moved to this new location, the structure would not be a contributing resource in the West Washington National Register
District. The loss of this status will negate future opportunities for rehabilitation grants to preserve the structure long term.
Without those grant opportunities, long term maintenance of the structure will fall exclusively to the owner.
The History Museum's argument is that moving the cabin will lead to greater utilization and more engagement with the
structure. The History Museum currently uses the structure for "Cabin Days", a three-day long school event that happens
annually. The History Museum has stated that amenities (bathrooms / comfort stations, storage facilities) are not available at
the site in its current configuration, and that moving the structure to The History Museum campus would provide those
amenities. The History Museum further states that they feel the structure will be more secure on their campus. It is unknown if
The History Museum had any dialogue with Venues, Parks & Arts to seek greater utilization of existing parks facilities.
STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES:
9.0 LANDSCAPES – STANDARDS AND CRITERIA FOR LEEPER PARK
9.1 Introduction
1. In these guidelines the verb Should indicates a recommended course of action; the verb Shall indicates those
actions which are specifically required to preserve and protect significant architectural elements.
2. The intent of these standards and criteria is to preserve the overall character and appearance of Leeper Park including
its spatial organization, topography, vegetation, circulation and features.
3. The standards and criteria acknowledge that there will be changes to the landscape and are intended to make the
change sensitive to the historic character of the landscape.
4. Each property will be separately studied to determine if a later addition(s) and/or alteration(s) can, or should, be
removed.
5. Since it is not possible to provide one general guideline, the following factors that will be considered in
determining whether a later addition(s) and/or alteration(s) can, or should, be removed include:
a. Compatibility with the original property's integrity in scale, materials, and character.
b. Historic association with the property.
c. Quality in design and execution of the addition/alteration.
d. Functional usefulness.
6. Recreational facilities which exist should be allowed to remain as long as they serve substantial community functions.
In some cases these features can be redesigned to be more compatible with the overall landscape.
7. Additions to existing recreational facilities shall not be allowed unless such additions make the facilities more
compatible with the overall landscape.
8. The development of additional facilities for active recreation or single purpose uses for limited user groups shall not
be allowed.
9. Proposals for special activities and events which cause significant impacts or require permanent or even semi-
permanent (seasonal) structures or facilities shall not be permitted.
10. The Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph County recommends that the work proposed to
the landscape be executed with the guidance of landscape professional with expertise with historic landscapes.
11. The land, streets, island(s), street lighting, park lighting, topography, vistas, vegetation, architectural elements,
structures, spatial organization, street furniture, sewer covers, electrical and water vault and/or manholes covers,
parking areas are subject to the terms of the landscape guidelines herein stated.
12. Items under Historic Preservation review include but are not limited to the following:
9.2 Spatial Organization (includes, Views, Vistas, Landscape Spaces, etc.)
Refer to Sections 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, 9.6, 9.7 and 9.8 for additional Standards and Criteria that may apply.
1. Views and vistas are among the most important aspects of a landscape, therefore, they should be maintained and
preserved.
2. All views, vistas, landscape spaces located in the eastern section and central section of Leeper Park shall be preserved.
All views, vistas, landscape spaces located north and east and west of a line designated as the northern fence of the
tennis courts located in the western section of Leeper Park shall also be preserved. This shall include the island(s)
located in the St. Joseph River and the slough which lies between the island(s) and the mainland. All views, vistas,
and landscape spaces shall also include the entirety of the riverbank as well as the area lying between the roadway of
Riverside Drive up to and including the riverbank and cut stone wall along the riverbank.
3. Original or later contributing special organizational features shall be retained in their existing configuration and shall
be maintained through proper drainage, access and erosion control, pruning and removal of invasive vegetation or
otherwise using recognized horticultural and soil management practices.
4. Alteration of existing or addition of new spatial organizational features will be considered if they do not alter the basic
concept of the historic landscape design.
5. Deteriorated or missing spatial organizational features shall be replaced with features that match the original in form,
shape, color and texture.
6. When replacement of features is necessary, it should be based on physical or documentary evidence.
7. If using the same material is not technically or economically feasible, then compatible substitute materials may be
considered.
8. Important visual connections between spaces within the landscape shall be retained by maintaining vegetation,
circulation and topography features which contribute to those visual relationships.
9. The historic spatial and functional relationship of circulation systems, water features and structures shall be preserved
by maintaining the massing of adjacent vegetation, vistas, or other associated features.
10. Maintenance of removal or, and additions of vegetation materials and elements should consider maintaining existing
or intended vistas and spaces, screening intrusions, creating new spaces where appropriate and maintaining defined
areas of shade and sun.
I I.. The form and shape of individual spaces and their associated vertical element shall be retained in order to preserve the
historic relationships of the landscape. Examples include the relationship between open fields and hedgerows or the
width and length of an allee.
12. Moving or demolishing historic structures that would alter spatial and visual relationships in the landscape
shall not be allowed.
13. Construction of new structures that would alter historic spatial and visual relationships in the landscape shall not be
allowed.
14. Intrusive views or new construction may be screened with compatible fencing or plant material so long as the
screening would not detract from the historic character of the landscape.
9.3 Topography (includes the Shape, Slope, Elevation, Contour of landforms and Ground Plane, etc.) Refer to Sections 9.2, 9.4,
9.5, 9.8, 9.9 and 9.10 for additional Standard and Criteria that may apply.
1. All locations and items listed in 9.2.2 shall also apply to this section and shall be preserved.
2. Original or later contributing topographical features shall be retained in their existing configuration and shall be
maintained through proper drainage, access and erosion control, and recognized soil management practices.
3. Alteration of existing or addition to new topographical features will be considered if they do not later the basic
concept of the historic landscape design.
4. Natural features (e.g. rock outcroppings) which are integrated into the landscape shall be treated as part of the overall
design and shall be retained.
5. Deteriorated or missing materials or features shall be replaced with materials that match the original in form, shape,
color and texture.
6. When replacement of materials or features is necessary, it should be based on physical or documentary evidence.
7. If using the same material is not technically or economically feasible, then compatible substitute materials may be
considered.
8. Whenever appropriate, plant materials, rather than structural materials should be used to solve erosion problems.
Repair of WPA island and slough stone construction projects is strongly encouraged.
9.4 Vegetation (includes Trees, Shrubs, Ground Covers, Hedges, Allees, Fields, Forests, Planting Beds, etc.)
Refer to Sections 9.2, 9.3, 9.5, 9.7, 9.8, 9.9, and 9.10 for additional Standards and Criteria that may apply.
1. Refer to Section 9.2.2 for items within this section which shall be preserved. Also included in this section shall be the
diverse variety of trees, shrubs, bushes and other vegetation which may or may not be indigenous to this region. List
of such types of vegetation can be in lists and inventories which were published in the annual reports of both the City
of South Bend and the South Bend Park Commissions from the years 1910 to 1940.
2. Original or later contributing vegetation materials and features shall be retained in their existing configuration and
shall be maintained through proper horticultural management practices.
3. Alteration of existing or addition of new vegetation materials and features will be considered if they do not alter the
basic concept of the historic landscape design.
4. Deteriorated or missing materials or features shall be replaced with materials that match the original in form, shape,
color and texture.
5. When replacement of vegetation materials or features is necessary, it should be based on physical or documentary
evidence.
6. if using the same vegetation material is not technically or economically feasible, then compatible substitute vegetation
materials may be considered if they convey the same growth habit, form, foliage and bloom characteristics as the
historic plant.
7. Existing vegetation material shall be retained unless it is part of a later non -compatible design or is volunteer
vegetation inconsistent with the original design.
S. Consideration for removal of existing healthy vegetation materials and features will be given when it is in conflict
with the original design intent of the landscape, such as when an important vista has become overgrown or when
plants have grown out of scale with their intended purpose.
9. Maintenance of, removal of, and additions of vegetation materials and features should consider maintaining existing
or intended vistas and spaces, screening intrusions, creating new spaces where appropriate and maintaining defined
areas of shade and sun.
10. Invasive vegetation shall be removed whenever technically feasible and shall be replaced with appropriate vegetation
consistent with the original design of the park and with current factors such as security, ecological conditions, and
wildlife management practices.
11. Hazardous plants or portions of plants should be removed promptly.
12. Plants with diseases that are difficult or not practical to control or cure should be removed promptly to prevent their
infection of other plants.
13. Mutilated or distorted plants should be removed.
14. Plant replacements should be added on a schedule that will insure a continuity in the landscape design.
15. Existing vegetation shall be protected adjacent construction activities by fencing the root system prior to the start of
construction.
16. Future plantings of the main floral garden in the central section of the park shall be guided by the design of the main
floral garden as laid out by George Kessler in 1912.
9.5 Circulation (includes Roads, Paths, Parkways, Drives,'1'rials, Walks, etc.)
Refer to Sections 9.2, 9.5, 9.6, 9.8, 9.9 and 9.10 for additional Standards and Criteria that may apply.
1. The following shall be preserved: Riverside Drive, Lafayette Boulevard, Park Lane (Foote Street), Bartlett Street, the
Alleyway east of Michigan Street running north from Bartlett Street, all sidewalks, curbs, pathways around the duck
pond (west lagoon), stairways, pathways in and around the Sunken Garden, and the footbridge from the mainland to
the island. Alteration or addition of Roads, Paths, Parkways, Trails, Walks, etc. shall be based upon physical or
historical documentation of these items as they existed from 1910 to 1940.
2. Original or later contributing layouts of walks, roads, and paved areas shall be maintained.
3. Alteration of existing or addition of new circulation layouts will be considered if it can be shown that better site
circulation is necessary, and that the alteration does not alter the basic concept of the historic landscape design.
4. When replacement of circulation layouts is necessary, it should be based on physical or documentary evidence.
5. Original or later contributing circulation materials and features shall be retained and, if necessary, repaired by
patching, piecing -in or reinforcing the material or feature using recognized preservation methods.
6. Deteriorated or missing circulation materials and features shall be replaced with materials that match the original in
size, shape, color, profile, form, texture, and detail of installation.
7. If using the same material is not technically or economically feasible, then compatible substitute materials may be
considered.
8. Alteration of existing or addition of new circulation materials and features will be considered if they do not alter the
basic concept of the historic landscape design.
9. Consideration will be given to an alternate paving material if it can be shown that its properties will improve the
original or later contributing design concept.
10. When replacement of circulation materials or features is necessary, it should be based on physical or documentary
evidence.
It. Consideration for removal of existing circulation systems and features will be given when it is in conflict with the
original design intent of the landscape or when they are no longer appropriate to their intended purposes.
12. No vehicles unless of or approved by the South Bend Parks Department shall be permitted on any part of the park
surface at any time. Vehicles of American Electric Power and/or other vehicles of the City of South Bend, shall use
predetermined routes to and from their destination, when said travel would cause them to cross any area of the park
which is not paved and designed for vehicular traffic. Any damage caused by any vehicle, shall be repaired
immediately to look as it did prior to said damage.
13. Encroachment of vehicles off the paved roadway of any area of the park shall not be permitted. Areas now used for
vehiculai paikiug which aie not part of the historical design of that park shall be removed.
14. Construction of any type within the park shall be done so as not to disturb any feature of the park. Sheets of plywood
or other approved material may need to be laid upon the surface of the park prior to construction equipment. Repairs
which must match the original historic design concept shall be made in any and all circumstances of damage.
9.6 Water Features (includes Fountains, Pools, Irrigation Systems, Ponds, Rivers, etc.)
Refer to Sections 9.11 B, C, and D regarding treatment of materials and features; and Sections 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, 9.7, 9.8 and
9.10 for additional Standards and Criteria that may apply.
1. Features which shall be preserved include: the duck pond (West Lagoon), the water pond in the Sunken Garden, the
slough between the island and the mainland, all drinking fountains, pump houses, manhole covers, drainage grates,
horse and dog fountain and path of the St. Joseph River in relation to the park.
2. Original or later contributing water features shall be retained and maintained.
3. Existing water courses or bodies should not be altered. Consideration will be given to proposals that improve site
drainage, improve water quality, enhance the landscape design or improve wildlife habitat.
4. Alteration of existing or addition of new water features will be considered if they do not alter the basic concept of the
historic landscape design.
5. When placement of water features and their materials are necessary, it should be based on physical or documentary
evidence.
6. Original or later contributing water feature materials shall be retained and, if necessary, repaired by patching, piecing
in, consolidating or reinforcing the material using recognized preservation methods.
7. Deteriorated or missing water feature materials shall be replaced with materials that match the original in size, shape,
color, profile, form, texture, and detail of installation.
8. If using the same material is not technically or economically feasible, then compatible substitute materials may be
considered.
9. Alteration of existing or addition of new water features will be considered if they do not alter the basic concept of the
historic landscape design.
10. When appropriate from an ecological perspective, dredging of waterways shall be permitted as a means of retaining
historic waterways.
11. All wetlands shall be preserved.
12. All shorelines of water courses or bodies shall be protected from erosion in a manner in keeping with the basic
concept of the landscape design.
13. Consideration for removal of existing water features will be given when it is in conflict with the original design intent
of the landscape or when they are no longer appropriate to their intended purposes.
14. Some areas of Leeper Park are utilized for the pumping of water for the City of South Bend, and there exists both
within the park and the St. Joseph River and on the island(s) wells, well -houses and other water supply entities.
Repairs that may be necessary to existing services, or additions to existing services, or the sinking or additional new
wells; all such work, installations and/or repairs shall return the disturbed areas(s) of the park, island(s) and the St.
Joseph River to conditions of the park as in that time period 1912 to 1940. Any new installations of any type may be
considered if the alteration does not alter the basic concept of the historic landscape design.
9.7 Furnishings and Objects (includes Benches, Lights, Signs, Drinking Fountains, Trash Receptacles, Fences, Tree Grates,
Flagpoles, Sculpture, Monuments, Memorials, Planters, Urns, etc.)
Refer to Sections 9.11 B, C and D regarding treatment of materials and features; and Sections 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, 9.6, 9.8, 9.9 and
9.10 for additional Standards and Criteria that may apply.
i. All items listed herein shall be preserved:
a. The Duck Pond (West Lagoon), including the Island in the lagoon, the Walls, Curbing, Fence, and Shelter
House.
b. The Stone and Plaque of the DAR, with related Tulip and Gingko Trees.
C. The Concrete Stairway leading west southwesterly from the Duck Pond (West Lagoon).
d. The High Embankment on the west-southwest side of the Duck Pond (West Lagoon).
C. The Pump Houses, number 2 and 3.
f. The Edward B. Reynolds Horse and Dog Watering Fountain.
g. The Drinking Fountain in the south east portion of the central section of the park.
h. The central section of the park, the area of the large Floral Garden and Pathways as designed by George
Kessler in 1912.
i. All Sidewalks on Lafayette Boulevard, Riverside Drive, Park Lane (Foote Street), Bartlett Street and
Michigan Street.
j. The Retaining Wall on the western boundary of the western section of the park.
k. The Wall comprised of Cut Stone, which extended west-northwest and east-southeast from the southern
approach of the Leeper Park Bridge.
1. The Log Cabin known as the Navarre House, and the footings of the cabin/house which was burned
down.
m. All Drinking Fountains located in the eastern section of the park and/or on the island(s).
n. The Sunken Garden on the eastern section of the park, along with all the Vegetation, Pathways, Stairs and
the Fountain and Statues.
o. The WPA walls and Sloughs(s) in the eastern section of the park and the adjoining St. Joseph River.
p. All Park Benches.
q. Al l Manhole Covers, Sewer Covers and Grates, and all Electrical Underground Vault and/or Raceway
Covers.
r. The north/south alleyway east of Michigan Street, running north from Bartlett Street which used to run
between Lot 'A' and Lots 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and part of 20 of the Rockstroh Addition.
S. All Plaques, Monuments, Sculptures, Memorials, Planters, Urns, Curbings, Roadways, Marker Stones,
Sundials, Well -Head Covers, Fences, Trellises, Pergolas, Pathways, and Trees.
2. Original or later contributing furnishings and objects, shall be retained and, if necessary, repaired by patching, piecing
in, consolidating or reinforcing the material using recognized preservation methods.
3. Deteriorated or missing furnishings and objects, materials, elements, features and details shall be replaced with
materials that match the original in material, size, shape, color, profiles, form, texture, configuration and detail of
installation.
4. Alteration of existing or addition of new furnishings and objects will be considered if they do not alter the basic
concept of the historic landscape design.
5. When replacement of furnishings and objects and their materials is necessary, it should be based on physical or
documentary evidence.
6. If using the same material is not technically or economically feasible, then compatible substitute materials may be
considered.
7. Existing memorials, statues, monuments and fountains shall be carefully preserved and restored where necessary,
maintaining the integrity of the original material and design. The work shall be coordinated with the Historic
Preservation Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph County.
8. New furnishings and object should be designed using vandal resistant standards.
9. Location of signs shall be guided by a master plan.
10. Signs shall conform to a simple sign system.
11. Existing non -conforming signs should be removed.
12. All new monuments and fountains shall be placed so that they conform to and with the original historic landscape
design of the park and park system.
9.8 Structures (includes Walls, Terraces, Arbors, Gazebos, Follies, Playground Equipment, Picnic Shelters, Plazas,
Greenhouse, Steps, Bridges, Dams, Buildings, etc.)
Refer to Sections 9.11 B and D regarding treatment of materials and features; and sections 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, 9.6, 9.7, 9.9
and 9.10 for additional Standards and Criteria that may apply.
1. The general intent is to preserve the original or later contributing structures that enhance the historic landscape.
2. Refer to Sections 9.2.2 and 9.7.1 of structures, elements and materials that need to be preserved such as wall,
terraces, arbors, gazebos, follies, playground equipment, picnic shelters, plazas, greenhouses, steps, bridges,
dams, building, etc. which shall be preserved.
3. Original or later contributing structures, shall be retained and, if necessary, repaired by patching, piecing in,
consolidating or reinforcing the material using recognized preservation methods.
4. Deteriorated or missing structures, materials, elements, features and details shall be replaced with materials that
match the original in material, size, shape, color, profiles, form, texture, configuration and detail of installation.
5. When replacement of structures is necessary, it should be based on physical or documentary evidence.
6. If using the same material is not technically or economically feasible, then compatible substitute materials may
be considered.
7. New addition/alterations to the landscape (such as: parking lots, comfort stations, buildings, etc.) shall be as
unobtrusive as possible and preserve and original or later contributing landscape features.
8. Removal of non -historic structures from the existing landscape is encouraged.
9. Structures shall be protected from arson and other acts of vandalism through proper monitoring procedures and
methods such as; permanent installation of smoke detectors, alarms, or other security systems, or temporarily
boarding up windows and openings.
10. No building(s) shall be erected in the central section of the park; the western section of the park, north of the
northern fence to the tennis courts; the eastern section of the park, west of the rear set -back of the north Pumping
Station, or in the area north and east of the Log Cabin.
9.9 Archeology
Refer to Section 9.11 B and C, and D regarding treatment and materials. Refer to Sections 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, 9.6, 9.7 and 9.8 for
additional Standards and Criteria that may apply.
1. The landscape should be surveyed for potential archeological sites prior to the beginning of any construction project.
2. Known Archeological site(s) shall be protected during any construction project.
3. Disturbance of the terrain within the landscape shall be kept to a minimum so as not to disturb any unknown
archeological materials.
4. All planning, any necessary site investigation, or data recovery shall be conducted by professional archeologist.
9. 10 Accessibility
Refer to Sections 9.11 B, C and D regarding treatment of materials. Refer to Sections 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, 9.6, 9.7, and 9.8 for
additional Standards and Criteria that may apply.
1. A three-step approach is recommended to identify and implement accessibility modification that will protect the
integrity and historic character of the property.
a. Review the historical significance of the property and identify character -defining features;
b. Assess the property's existing and required level of accessibility;
C. Evaluate accessibility options within a preservation context.
2. Because of the complex nature of accessibility, the Historic Preservation Commission will review proposals on a case
by case basis. The Commission recommend consulting with the following document which is available from the
Commission office: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resources, Preservation
Assistance Division; Preservation Brief 32, "Making Historic Properties Accessible" by Thomas C. Jester and Sharon
C. Park, AIA.
9.11 Architectural Materials
A. General
The Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph County recommend that work proposed to the materials
outlined in Sections B, C, and D be executed with the guidance of a professional building material conservator.
1. Removal of the speakers atop Pump House Number 3 is encouraged.
B. Masonry (Brick, Stone, Terra Cotta, Concrete, Stucco, and Mortar)
1. [intentionally left blank]
2. Original or later contributing masonry materials, feature, details, surfaces and ornamentation shall be retained and, if
necessary, repaired by patching, piecing -in, or consolidating the masonry using recognize preservation methods.
3. Deteriorated or missing masonry materials, features, details, surfaces and ornamentation shall be replaced with
material and elements which match the original in material, color, texture, size, shape, profile and detail of
installation.
4. When replacement of materials or elements is necessary, it should be based on physical or documentary evidence.
5. If using the same material is not technically or economically feasible, then compatible substitute materials may be
considered.
6. Original mortar shall be retained.
7. Deteriorating mortar shall be carefully removed by hand -raking the joints.
S. Use of mechanical saws and hammers shall not be allowed.
9. Repointing mortar shall duplicate the original mortar in strength, composition, color, texture, joint size, joint profile
and method of application.
10. Sample panels of raking the joints and repointing shall be reviewed and approved by the staff of the Historic
Preservation Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph County.
11. Cleaning of masonry is discouraged and should be performed only when necessary to halt determination.
12. If the building is to be cleaned, the mildest method possible shall be used.
13. A test patch of the cleaning method(s) shall be reviewed and approved on site by staff of the Historic Preservation
Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph County. Test patches should always be carred out well in advance of
cleaning (including exposure to all seasons if possible.)
14. Sandblasting (wet or dry), wire brushing, or similar abrasive cleaning methods shall not be permitted. Doing so
changes the visual quality of the material and accelerates deterioration.
15. Waterproofing or water repellant are strongly discouraged. These treatments are generally not effective in preserving
masonry and can cause permanent damage. The Commission does recognize that in extraordinary circumstances their
use may be required to solve a specific problem. Samples of any proposed treatment shall be reviewed by the
Commission before application.
16. In general, painting masonry surfaces shall not be allowed. Painting masonry surfaces will be considered only when
there is documentary evidence that this treatment was used at some point in the history of the property.
C. Wood
1. [intentionally left blank]
2. Original or later contributing wood surfaces, features, details and ornamentation shall be retained and, if necessary,
repaired by patching, piecing -in, consolidating or reinforcing the wood using recognized preservation methods.
3. Deteriorated or missing wood surfaces, features, details and ornamentation shall be replaced with material and
elements which match the original in material, color, texture, size, shape, profile and detail of installation.
4. When replacement of materials or elements is necessary, it should be based on physical or documentary evidence.
5. If using the same materials or elements is necessary, it should be based on physical or documentary evidence.
6. Cleaning of wooden elements shall use the mildest method possible.
7. Paint removal should be considered only where there is a paint surface deterioration and as part of an overall
maintenance appropriate protective coatings. Coatings such as paints help protect the wood from moisture and
ultraviolet light and stripping the wood bare will expose the surface to the effects of weathering.
8. Damage or deteriorated paint should be removed to the next sound layer using the mildest method possible.
9. Propane or butane torches, sandblasting, water blasting, or other abrasive cleaning and/or paint removal methods shall
not be permitted. Doing so changes the visual quality of the wood and accelerates deterioration.
10. Repainting should be based on paint serration studies. If an adequate record does not exist repainting shall be done
with the colors that are appropriate to the style and period of the building.
D. Architectural Metals (Cast Iron, Steel, Pressed Tin, Copper, Aluminum, and Zinc)
1. All metal materials, features, details and ornamentation of the buildings in the park shall be preserved. This also
includes all metal parts of all fountains, monuments, memorials, plaques, street lights, drinking fountains, etc.
2. Original or later contributing metal materials, features, details, and ornamentation shall be retained and, if necessary
repaired by patching, splicing or reinforcing the metal using recognized preservation methods.
3. Deteriorated or missing metal materials, features, details and ornamentation shall be replaced with material and
elements which match the original in material, color, texture, size, shape, profile and detail of installation.
4. When replacement of materials or elements is necessary, it should be based on physical evidence or documentary
evidence.
5. If using the same material is not technically or economically feasible then compatible substitute materials may be
considered.
6. Cleaning of metal elements either to remove corrosion or deteriorated paint shall use the mildest method possible.
7. Abrasive cleaning methods, such as low pressure dry grit blasting, may be allowed as long as it does not abrade or
damage the surface.
8. A test patch of the cleaning method(s) shall be reviewed and approved on site by staff of the Historic Preservation
Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph County. Test patches should always be carried out well in advance of
cleaning (including exposure to all seasons if possible.)
9. Cleaning to remove corrosion and paint removal should be considered only where there is deterioration and as part of
an overall maintenance program which involved repainting or applying other appropriate protective coatings. Paint or
other coatings help retard the corrosion rate of the metal. Leaving the metal base will expose the surface to accelerated
corrosion.
10. Repainting should be based on paint seriation studies. If an adequate record does not exist repainting shall be done
with colors that are appropriate to the style a and period of the building.
The Landscapes- Specific Standard and Criteria was financed in part with funds from the National Park Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior, through the Massachusetts Historical Commission, Secretary of State, Michael Joseph Connolly,
Chairman, and adopted for use by the Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph County, Indiana, by
permission of the Environment Department, City of Boston, Massachusetts, by Michael A. Cannizzo, Staff Architect, 1996.
SITE VISIT REPORT:.N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the proposed project based upon the Leeper Park Standards and
Guidelines, items 9.2.12 ( "Moving or demolishing historic structures that would alter spatial and visual relationships in the
landscape shall not be allowed. ") and 9.7.1.1 ( "All items listed herein shall be preserved: (...) The Log Cabin known as the
Navarre House, and the footings of the cabin/house which was burned down. ")
Prepared by
Adam Toering, Historic Preservation Specialist
Approved by
Elicia Feasel, Historic Preservation Administrator
PETITIONER COMMENTS:
Ms. Erickson clarified that the application indicated that The History Museum had originally planned to
remove the Herb Garden and the concrete footings that were part of the cabin, and that having
had conversations with Venues Parks & Arts, that their removal was not desired.
Ms. Erickson thanked for the Commission for hearing the project and apologized for the delay in coming
before the Commission. Ms. Erickson gave a presentation of the history of the cabin and its
various locations. This included a history of Pierre Navarre, the original builder of the Cabin
across the river in what is now the West North Shore Drive Local Historic District. Ms.
Erickson indicated that the cabin was moved multiple times within Leeper Park as various
developments occurred, ending up in its current location in 1954.
Ms. Erickson stated that the cabin deteriorated over the years leading to The History Museum partnering
with the Historic Preservation Commission and the Indiana DNR to raise money to extensively
restore the cabin in 2005, guided by the recommendations of the Leatherwood Company, one of
the nation's leading experts of log cabin restoration.
Ms. Erickson stated that the location caused problems for programming. The Museum would like for
their interpretation to be immersive, but due to weather and other environmental factors — the
hospital, the reservoir, the pumping station, the highway — limits their interpretive efforts.
Ms. Erickson stated that parking is an issue with the park and that buses try not to park on the grass, that
there is no shelter to take the children to in the event of rain, that storage is an issue and that the
supplies for the cabin must be loaded and unloaded every day at the cabin because local storage
is not available. Were the material stored in the cabin, that would make difficult cleaning or
maintaining the structure.
Ms. Erickson stated that the historic comfort station that is nearby is non-functional, and this is an added
concern during the ongoing COVID emergency. There is no immediate place for children to
wash their hands or use the bathroom.
Ms. Erickson stated that The History Museum's interpretation of the site is limited to what can be set up
in a matter of hours, there are no garden plots or places for animals or outbuildings, things that
the museum would like to include.
Ms. Erickson stated there are safety concerns. Most teachers and parents don't allow their children to
cross [Riverside Drive within the park] to see the cabin within its historic context of the river.
The Park is an unbounded space, meaning that the museum can't control who comes to the
space. There are no walls to keep the children contained, and kids will run off and this causes
challenges.
Ms. Erickson stated that the safety of the cabin is a concern. There is a security system, but there are no
cameras in the park, and there have been times when the alarm has gone off, but the police can't
find [the reason] so they just give up. The cabin is constantly in danger of arson or being used as
a shelter by people sleeping in the park. There is graffiti that is currently being removed.
Ms. Erickson stated that The History Museum's board of trustees and staff believe that it is best to move
the cabin to the campus. Ms. Erickson indicated where the cabin will be moved to, and that
Lykowski Construction will facilitate that move. The final location of the cabin has not been
determined yet. There will be a fence to enclose the structure, and landscaping is planned to
shield the site from the neighborhood and the neighborhood from the site.
Ms. Erickson explained that the new site would allow for The History Museum to plan for the erection of
additional interpretive structures like a blacksmith shop, other outbuildings, and structures
representative of the indigenous peoples.
Ms. Erickson stated that this would be available for student groups who visited the museum, as well as
could be included with daily tours of the mansion, and that additional signage could installed to
allow for viewing when docents were not available.
Ms. Erickson said that there will be site security, including discreet security cameras.
Ms. Erickson stated that there have been conversations with Venues Parks & Arts regarding the
installation of interpretive signage to indicate the previous site of the cabin, similar to the Powell
House.
Ms. Erickson discussed the impact on the removal of the Cabin on the Kessler -designed Leeper Park and
indicated that the cabin is not present in his plan.
Ms. Erickson discussed that The History Museum understands that moving the cabin means that the
status of the cabin as a Local Landmark will be lost, as will its inclusion as a contributing
resource on the National Register of Historic Places. The History Museum has expressed
interest in re -designating the cabin as a Local Landmark and expressed that they have contacted
the DNR to pursue re -inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. The Museum plans
to engage in a capital campaign to raise funds to continue to maintain the structure were it not
able to receive grant monies from the Federal government because of loss of the National
Register status.
Ms. Erickson called attention to the Standards and Guidelines for Leeper Park, specifically "factors
considered in determining whether a later addition or alteration can be removed", and inferred
that the cabin was not compatible with George Kesslers' plan for the park, that the cabin was not
in its original site, and that the `functional usefulness' is limited for The History Museum.
Ms. Erickson summarized that The History Museum believes that the removal of the cabin will not
negatively impact the historic `status' of Leeper Park; that the cabin should be moved with intent
and forethought to a permanent home that realizes its educational potential and in the site of its
appropriate historic context.
Mr. Harding stated that they truly believe that [moving the cabin] is a benefit to the community, and that
many people they have spoken to have agreed. The History Museum held a public forum on
March 1 1 t" and 51 people attended, and `all those who attended had positive comments.' This
was done to provide information and seek input from the community. They provided a fifteen
minute presentation. There were twenty questions that were answered.
Mr. Harding conveyed that a woman who grew up in the North Shore Triangle who could not attend the
presentation remembered playing at the cabin as a child but was happy that the cabin will be
moved because she has concerns of damage and graffiti.
Mr. Harding highlighted that both the South Bend Community School Corporation and the Penn -Hams
Madison School Corporation support this move.
Commissioner Gelfman asked if the Commissioners had any questions for the applicant.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko expressed concern regarding how much the cabin will be accessible, as
her own visits to the museum's campus have found that the Worker's House is not available for
tours with regularity.
Mr. Harding spoke to the deferred maintenance that was evident on the Worker's House, that there were
safety concerns with the Worker's House, and those have been rectified, and that every tour of
main house now has the opportunity to enter the Worker's House.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko asked about group tour access and scheduling those visits.
Ms. Erickson responded that the group tour coordinator fields group requests and ensures that sufficient
staff are available for when groups are scheduled to visit the campus.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko asked if general admittance would be able to visit the cabin, walk
around the grounds, and then decide they wanted to see the inside, would they then be able to
see inside of the cabin.
Ms. Erickson stated that there are regularly scheduled house and mansion tours at specific times, and that
there is an order to the tour, but if a family wanted to see only the workers house, the staff would
accommodate their request.
Commissioner Andrews asked if The History Museum had explored working with or partnering with
Venues Parks & Arts more to provide for those amenities that the cabin would have on
Washington Street, but that would allow it to stay within the park.
Mr. Harding stated that they have spoken with Venues Parks & Arts, and that they support the moving of
the cabin to the museum's campus. Venues Parks & Arts own the Park, The History Museum
own the structure. The comfort station was discussed and VPA recognized it as an issue, but not
as a priority.
Commissioner Andrews stated that this is disappointing because there has been so much work on the
western and central portions of Leeper Park, and that she would like to know what the plans for
the eastern portion of Leeper Park really holds. She expressed sadness that they would be `ok'
with removing a historic structure and leaving a plaque in its place. Copshaholm is known for
being a `closed' structure — nothing comes in, nothing comes out, and this is a plan to remove a
structure from near where it stood originally. This seems counterintuitive.
Ms. Erickson clarified that the cabin will not be on site of Copshaholm or its gardens, so it will not take
away from the site, at all. Ms. Erickson stated that Venues Parks & Arts did inform them a little
of their plans for Leeper Park and that there was little planned with the cabin. Further, Venues
Parks & Arts further clarified that some of the Cabin Days activities are against Code, namely,
having an open fire, so that activity will need to be scaled back in future cabin days.
Commissioner Stalheim asked whether The History Museum had contacted the State Historic
Preservation office regarding relisting the cabin on the National Register of Historic Places.
Ms. Erickson stated that they had contacted the state office and stated that the HPC had received a letter
from that office stating their current position, that best guess is that it is a 50-50 toss up for re-
designation.
Commissioner Deegan asked if they had considered building a replica of the cabin, instead of moving
this one.
Mr. Harding stated that, as they were the Northern Indiana Historical Society, it would mean so much
more to have the actual building, but that other alternatives have been discussed.
Commissioner Deegan clarified that, seeing how the context of the river was so important to the cabin's
original placement along a major water way, moving it to a dense residential area seems
somewhat counterintuitive to trying to convey the importance of the waterway in the original
cabin site's selection, which included the expanse, openness of space; and access to resources
via the river.
Ms. Erickson stated that they hope to create a visual barrier to separate the residential neighborhood, and
that the current site has no visual barrier from the Pumping Station and Reservoir that are
immediately adjacent to the cabin. The History Museum is still discussing the interpretation of
the site, and that they could build a replica of the cabin, but they consider the original cabin a
tool for education which is why it has been saved for so long.
Mr. Harding expressed excitement of having the opportunity to have three different historic residences
on the Museum's campus is a wonderful draw.
Commissioner Gelfman asked if The History Museum was aware that there are plans for reconstructions
on Leeper Park east, potentially scheduled for 2021.
Ms. Erickson responded in the affirmative, that they had talked to Aaron Perri and John Martinez.
Commissioner Gelfman asked if there were any discussions about how the cabin could be integrated into
those plans.
Mr. Harding stated that Venues Parks & Arts had planned to create additional walking paths around the
cabin, but no additional changes were planned.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Tiffany expressed that this is a tough project, that he liked the idea of the cabin being
safe, but it is leaving the context of the river.
Commissioner Stalheim expressed support for increasing the access and `programming' of the site but
stated his concern for the loss of access to funding available through tax credits and other
programs afforded by inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places.
Commissioner Andrews expressed concern that so much effort and time was spent on `Phase V of
Leeper Park, that it feels like `Phase 2' of Leeper Park is an afterthought, and that this historic
asset isn't getting the same attention as Phase 1. Perhaps they could find another group of
`fountain girls' —'cabin girls' who could adopt the cabin and push that forward. Commissioner
Andrews further stated that moving the cabin goes against preservation generally, so it is
difficult for her to process.
Commissioner Deegan stated that he has to believe there are opportunities to do more with Venues Parks
& Arts to connect the cabin with the park; that in terms of access, the cabin is currently in a
public park now, it is in a very welcoming place. The cabin's new location will be behind a
fence and gate, with controlled access doesn't seem ideal. Lastly, the idea of education outside
of the context of the river is objectionable, which is why the question about building a replica
was asked. If location isn't important, then the mere idea of having "the original" cabin in a new
location no longer matters — the Museum could put up a picture, or put up a picture of the river,
so I don't feel like accurate education is the main focus here.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko expressed that she is torn, and that the [applicant's] arguments are
uncontestable, but the cabin is leaving the riverine context. She further stated that the felt like
she was being forced to choose between a known option, and other unknown options.
Improvements to the park are unknown, and by constructing some of the amenities that the
museum may want for improving their use of the cabin in the park, would it then adversely
impact the cabin's setting. Funding is important, so the re -listing of the cabin the National
Register of Historic Places should be supported. She further supported the museum's stated
position of wanting to have multiple representations different time periods of homes on their
campus.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION:
IN FAVOR OF THIS PETITION:
Jonathon Cooke, 63460 Orange Road – Mr. Cooke identified himself as a member of the Board of the
History Museum, and he indicated that he has been the chair of the Campus Planning Committee
and has been working on acquiring the properties to move this cabin for over ten years. There
were two goals: 1) to move the cabin, 2) to create more green space. They have tried to save the
local houses that will be removed to move the cabin. He stated that he was involved with the
reconstruction of the cabin and that only approximately $40,000 was received because of the
historic status of the cabin, with the remaining 75% of the funds raised by The History Museum
fundraisers. He denounced the `idyllic setting' of Leeper Park because of the cabin's proximity
to the reservoir., and the river can barely be seen, and it is a safety hazard. He stated he felt that
this application was delayed, that it could have been heard in February, but The History Museum
had to have a public meeting to share information, so they were delayed. He attended the
February HPC meeting as an observer and recalled that he interpreted the ethics training as that
the Commission "should do what is best in the public's interest", and that moving the cabin to
The History Museum campus is in the best interest of the public.
Alyssa Gavin, 1208-2A Hidden Lakes Drive – Ms. Gavin identified herself as a public school teacher
with SBCSC as a fourth grade teacher, who has brought students to Cabin Days for seven years;
she stated that she is disappointed that the fire won't be available in future Cabin Days. She
stated that moving the cabin will benefit student education in many ways. A significant portion
of the curriculum is about Indiana's indigenous peoples, early exploration and settlement and
particularly the fur trade. Historic interpretation is incredibly useful for students. The History
Museum is limited in what they can offer in Cabin Days – if bad weather happens, the event has
to be cancelled or rescheduled, which can impact interpreter attendance or school attendance.
Security and safety are a concern with the busy road, the outside public, and the river. She also
stated that the lack of bathrooms is very concerning.
Jim Lykowski, 23158 West Ireland Road – Mr. Lykowski identified himself as the owner of Lykowski
Construction, which has been working with Jon [Cooke] to try and move the houses that will be
removed from the neighborhood to move the cabin, and those efforts have been exhausted. He
stated that he has lived in South Bend his entire life, been to the museum six or seven times and
had forgotten about the Navarre Cabin. He stated that he had known about the Powell Cabin,
which was burned to the ground. He stated that this cabin is an asset to the community, and he
would like to take his family to see the cabin, but where it is currently at, it is just not
comfortable to visit. If it was on the museum's grounds, he would visit it. Where the cabin is at
currently, he is afraid that it would get burned to the ground like the Powell Cabin. Moving the
cabin will offer the whole community to see it.
Dan Tychonovich, 54548 White Tail Drive — My Tychonovich identified himself as the President of the
Board of The History Museum and stated that he supports moving the cabin. The Northern
Indiana Historical Society is the perfect organization to provide the context of the cabin. He
stated they hosted a very successful exhibit, "Dressing Downton" based upon the Downton
Abbey TV show. People traveled to South Bend to see this exhibit. My Tychonovich indicated
that he did not grow up here, but has talked to people who did grow up here, and people didn't
often know about the Navarre Cabin outside of those who had kids who attended Cabin Days.
People did know about the Duck Pond, which was removed based upon best practices and
purpose. He stated that the Northern Indiana Historical Society will take care of this structure.
Administrator Feasel read into record the following six letters in support of the move the cabin:
John Martinez, Venues Parks & Arts — "Venues Parks & Arts asks that you please review the attached
COA on behalf of relocating the Pierre Navarre Cabin to the South Bend History Museum's
campus. While the current occupancy of the cabin is in our beautiful Leeper Park, VPA believes
that greater educational opportunities and care for this unique cultural asset can be found on the
campus of the History Museum. In its current location, VPA does not assume any maintenance
nor programmatic responsibilities for the cabin and has no plans for it in the future. These
responsibilities have been maintained by the History Museum up until this date. Our support
comes with the understanding that VPA is not the current owner nor has VPA initiated the move.
In alignment with our strategic values of creating memorable and innovative experiences for all
South Bend residents, we feel that the relocation of the cabin will only serve to increase positive
exposure of this asset to the community. We fully support the proposed relocation and plans of
the Museum to increase educational and maintenance opportunities that can be cultivated in the
cabin's new home. This support comes with the understanding and agreement between VPA and
the History Museum that any damages and landscape remediation caused by the relocation will
be covered and performed solely by the History Museum and their contractors. This is currently
being engineered through VPA staff and Lehman & Lehman. Thank you for your consideration,
John Martinez, Director, Facilities & Grounds."
Jo M. Broden, 201 West North Shore Drive — "I support the plan to move the Navarre cabin. I think
there will be opportunities for more educational and experiential programming in the future if
located in close proximity to the Center for History (a clear community benefit). I also think the
preservation prospects of the structure itself will be enhanced as it comes under the close and
daily oversight, care and maintenance of dedicated and skilled museum staff. Additionally, in
light of the historic flooding which we have experienced in Leeper Park and the likelihood of
even more heavy rain or flood events in the future, a move now is timely. I would, however,
request the installation (at the new location) of a map and info kiosk that denotes the true
historical location(s) of the cabin. Additionally, some creative pavement, stone or brick work
could similarly suggest the St. Joseph river's significance to those earlier sitings. It may also
assuage others sense of loss of this asset from the neighborhood if a historical marker could be
located at the site from where the cabin will be removed (that is, at its current location). Overall,
I think Leeper Park's loss of the Navarre Cabin could be a clear community gain now and for
posterity- as long as we find a way to celebrate its location history at both the new and current
location."
Todd Cummings, Ph.D, South Bend Community School Corporation -- "Dear Friends, I was fortunate
enough to join the South Bend community at a time when our city was making tremendous
strides in reframing its identity. Among those were major efforts to allow our city to continue
preserving and showcasing some of its most important historical landmarks. The Navarre Cabin
is undoubtedly one of the richest tokens of history in our area, and one that I believe is often
overlooked because of its location. Moving the Navarre Cabin to the History Museum's campus
would allow for this historic structure to be enjoyed by our students and community year round,
rather than the previous four days of the year. Doing so will ensure that our students will have
numerous advantages to enjoy and learn about the rich history of their hometown in a more
immersive and interactive environment. It will allow them to feel a deeper connection and better
envision the surroundings of a place untouched by today's world. Although the Navarre Cabin
has called Leeper Park home for 66 years, relocating it to the museum campus where students
can enjoy more readily is an important step in continuing the betterment of our city and
preserving its rich history. I hope you'll join me in supporting this effort. Sincerely, C. Todd
Cummings, Ph.D. Superintendent, South Bend Community School Corporation."
Pat Slebonick, Studebaker National Museum — "Dear Historic Preservation Commission, I am writing on
behalf of the Studebaker National Museum in support of the proposal by The History Museum to
relocate the Navarre Cabin to the Museum Campus. Relocation of the Navarre Cabin will make
both Museums more effective interpreters of local history. The current location provides
numerous logistical issues for an interpretive program. These difficulties leave the Cabin
underutilized as the robust interpretive tool it could be if moved to the Museum campus. In this
new location, visitors who are already attending two institutions eager to learn about our
community history could take advantage of the presence of Cabin. Rather than annually, cabin
tours could be developed and offered daily. Interpretation would be installed that allow every
campus visitor to learn about the historic structure. The new location will provide a greater
opportunity for meaningful educational programming and engagement with thousands of visitors
per year from local school children to guests from around the world. Further, moving the Cabin
to the Museum grounds would allow for the creation of a complete immersive homestead site
which will provide meaningful context for the Cabin. Placing the Cabin on the Museum Campus
would also allow for more frequent inspections and care of the historic structure by professional
staff members. This access will provide better control of the cabin site ensuring that the structure
is safeguarded for future generations. In conclusion, moving the Navarre Cabin to the Museum
Campus will make allow for better preservation of the Cabin and allow The History Museum to
ensure the Cabin remains a cultural pillar of our community for generations to come. Pat
Slebonick, Executive Director, Studebaker National Museum."
Dr. Jerry Thacker, Penn -Harris -Madison School Corporation, "Dear Mr. Harding: I am pleased to know
that there is an opportunity to relocate the Navarre Cabin from its current location in Leeper
Park to the Museum campus. It is highly appropriate to have a permanent home for the Navarre
Cabin in order to realize its educational potential in an appropriate context. This change can be
of tremendous educational value as the location greatly increases access on a daily basis. Since
school children can attend at no charge, this firsthand experience can be enjoyed by many
students It is exciting to know that our students will enjoy an immersive homestead context, in
contrast to the existing site with visual and auditory distractions due to the nearby highway,
pumping station, and hospital. With an improved infrastructure, with better parking, restroom
facilities, and access to the museum in the event of inclement weather, it is extremely
encouraging for our schools to take advance of such a wonderful educational experience. I am
especially pleased with the emphasis on safety for students, with controlled entry points,
eliminating the presence of unvetted individuals. By having a site which can be secured at night,
there is greater safety for the cabin and its visitors. Thank you for your leadership in this
initiative. It will provide outstanding historical learning experiences for our students. Sincerely,
Dr. Jerry Thacker, Penn -Harris -Madison School Corporation."
Martin Mechtenberg, Near Westside Neighborhood Organization — "To whom it may concern: The
Membership of the NWSNO voted unanimously in favor of the History Museum relocating the
Navarre Cabin to the Museum's property on Laurel Street. It was also noted that the NWSNO
membership would strongly prefer to see the two houses on Laurel relocated rather than
demolished. There are many empty lots in the neighborhood, and we would like to see more
quality, historic and affordable housing supported rather than destroyed. That said, our support
of the cabin move is not dependent on the preservation of those homes. Sincerely, Martin
Mechtenberg, President NWSNO."
IN OPPOSITION OF THIS PETITION:
Administrator Feasel read into record the following five letters in opposition of the move the cabin:
Paul C. Diebold, Assistant Director of Preservation Services, Indiana Department of Natural Resources,
Division of Historic Preservation & Archaeology — "Dear Mr. Toering, Thank you for your
inquiry regarding the National Register of Historic Places status of the Navarre Cabin.
Additionally, we can address how a relocation of the cabin would impact its relationship to the
National Register of Historic Places. As you are aware, the Navarre Cabin is located in Leeper
Park, and the park was listed in the National Register of Historic Places on June 15, 2000. The
nomination documents the cabin as a contributing building, and therefore, the cabin is listed in
the National Register as a part of Leeper Park. In fact, thanks to its status as a listed
propertyproperly, our office was able to provide a sizable matching Historic Preservation Fund
grant to restore the cabin in 2005. Relocation of the cabin will essentially remove it from the
National Register of Historic Places, making it ineligible for grants from our office, as well as
leaving the cabin potentially unprotected from any review process involving our office. Should
the cabin be moved to a location within a National Register -listed historic district, our office
would consider it a non-contributing building to that district. Again in this instance, owners of
the cabin would be ineligible for our matching grants or other programs. Moving of a historic
building, especially a National Register -listed one, is always a drastic measure that often has
unforeseen consequences for the resource, its current location, and the proposed location. We
hope the community will carefully consider this proposal. Sincerely, Paul C. Diebold."
John Charles Bryant — "I, John Charles Bryant, along with the members of the Farrow -Powell Family,
would like to see the Navarre Cabin stay in the park along with the Powell House memorial.
Thank you, John Charles Bryant."
Melonie Mulkey, 218 E Bartlett Street — "To Whom it May Concern: I urge you to oppose the History
Museum's request to move the "Navarre Cabin" from Leeper Park and relocate to the Museum's
grounds. Not only will you be taking away the historic landmark from its origins, but you will be
taking it away from all the people who come upon this structure while visiting the park. Leeper
Park attracts people from all over the area and all over the country, as the St. Joseph River's
steelhead and bass fishing make it a prime location. The beautiful rose garden and the
renovations that were done within the area have become a strong attraction to people from all
walks of life who want to enjoy nature as well as explore the history of the park. Being at the
corner of E. Bartlett Street and Michigan, my home was built in 1901 by Guy. D. Staples, an
original pioneer of the area. I consider Leeper Park to be my neighborhood and the historic
"Navarre Cabin" a central part of the park. As a recent graduate of Notre Dame (2019), my
husband and I decided to stay in South Bend and purchase a home in the River Bend historic
district. I consider myself to not only be a part of the South Bend community, but one that
deeply loves the rich history and historic neighborhoods in the city of South Bend, which was a
big motivator for us in choosing a neighborhood. Families like my husband and I, are purchasing
these historic homes because we want to keep them alive. The history of the cabin is a part of
our neighborhood and the community. Please again, reconsider the request to move the cabin.
This will take away the opportunity for many people who would not go to the museum, to
encounter the cabin while in nature and the historic Leeper Park. I see firsthand on a daily basis
the effect that the cabin has on people who visit the area. Instead of giving the museums the
opportunity to house this structure, keep it where it has roots, and where the everyday persons
can appreciate it. Sincerely, Melome Mulkey"
Benjamin Shelton — "Sorry for the delay sending these thoughts regarding the Navarre Cabin relocation.
While there are undoubtedly benefits to the History Museum incorporating the historic structure
into its campus programming, the problems seem to outweigh the good. Pierre Navarre's cabin
on the river demonstrates immediately to every visitor the important relationship between the St.
Joseph river and the earliest European settlers/trappers. This connection should be clarified, if
anything, not distorted. This connection would be lost in the West Washington neighborhood --
making the cabin a kind of museum set piece vs. historic landmark. Furthermore, the Cabin in its
present location (albeit an earlier relocation) also demonstrates a valuable piece of South Bend's
civic and social history. As part of Leeper Park, the Cabin offers the South Bend community a
visible example of early 20th -century zeal for making parks and public spaces. Taking the cabin
away from a South Bend park to put the structure in a fee-based, secluded setting would
fundamentally change the public's interaction with its past and remove a sign of how earlier
South Bend leaders and residents sought to honor the city by creating public spaces with
important monuments to its history. All the best, Ben"
Greta Fisher, 644 East Monroe Street — "Dear Commissioners: I am writing to voice my opposition to
the proposal to remove the Navarre cabin from Leeper Park. As a former Architectural Historian
and Local History librarian, I am well aware of the cabin's history, and its importance to our
community. Pierre Navarre chose a site for his cabin in proximity to the river and native
American trails. This advantageous location is also why others followed, leading to the founding
of our city. We owe our existence to the natural features Navarre recognized and chose as the
site to make his home. Although the cabin was moved from its original site, it is still within sight
of its original location, and to the river. People who are learning about this history, as they stand
at the present site of the cabin, can hear the water, see the trees, and envision the world as it was
over 200 years ago. It is impossible to separate an historic building from its setting without
sacrificing a part of its identity. We value historic structures in context, not alone. For these
reasons, Historic Preservation created Historic Districts, understanding that preserving buildings
IN CONTEXT gives them richer meaning. Leeper Park itself is protected, and the cabin, which
has been in the park since its creation, is an important feature of the park. The cabin is not under
threat in its current location. Although our area experienced dramatic flooding in recent years,
the cabin, elevated on a hill, was unaffected. Is it difficult to visit the cabin? No. In fact, recent
investments in the redevelopment of historic Leeper Park have made it more a destination than
ever. The reason for moving the cabin is simple convenience. The museum would like it to be
closer to their other properties. A homeowner who proposed moving their protected historic
structure simply for reasons of convenience would be denied immediately. Why is this petition
different? The Navarre cabin should stay in Leeper Park. Thank you for your time and attention,
Greta Fisher."
Commissioner Deegan made a motion to deny COA#2020-0302. Seconded by
Commissioner Andrews.
Four in favor, two opposed.
Vote: 4 — 2. Motion to deny COA #2020-0302 passes.
Commission President Gelfman clarified that, in motions for denial, Commissioners are
required to state their reasons for denial. Roll was called.
Commissioner Tiffany (NAY):
Commissioner Stalheim (AYE): I voted to deny, as I would like to see more in terms
of proposed future funding for maintenance as a way for making up for the loss
in historic tax credit resources if they are not able to be attained.
Commissioner Andrews (AYE): I voted to deny, because it goes against the Standards
and Guidelines that were read, stating, that all items shall be preserved, and it
goes against that.
Commissioner Deegan (AYE): I voted to deny, based upon the fact that it goes against
the Standards and Guidelines, and also as it betrays the educational mission and
historic value of the location.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko (NAY):
Commissioner Gelfman (AYE): I voted to deny, because of the National historic
location of this, also the 9.7.1.1, where all items shall be preserved for this
particular site, and that moving or demolishing any historic structure that would
alter the spatial or the visual relationships in the landscape shall not be allowed.
Certificate of Appropriateness #2020-0302 is denied.
4. 705-707 Lincoln Way East #2020-0313A #6846-80 Edgewater
Local Historic District
Representation: N/A
STAFF REPORT
CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR A
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
Date: 9 June 2020
Application Number: 2020-0313A
Property Location: 705-707 Lincoln Way East
Architectural Style/Date/Architect or Builder: American Foursquare / 1920 / "Seider Apartments"
Property Owner: Lara Properties Corporation
Landmark or District Designation: Edgewater Place Historic District #6846-80
Rating: Non -Contributing (Staff disagrees with rating and would deem it at least "Contributing")
DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURE/ SITE: This two-story 'American Foursquare' is rectangular in construction and sits on a
brick foundation. The first story is brick, while the second story is wood shingle with a molded overhang between the two
stories. The roof is gabled with a wide overhang; a pedimented gable and dormer is on the southeast roof face. The front of the
structure has a full open porch with brick piers and walls. Windows are double hung. First story front facade has wide paneled
windows, second story has French doors leading to the balcony. One centrally located chimney has a brick corbeled top.
ALTERATIONS:
AA 2020-0313B approved the replacement of three doors, 6 windows with Jeld-Wen aluminum clad windows, reconstruction of
the rear porch, fascia, and soffit (due to fire damage), and the installation of fencing at the rear of the property. COA 2017-
110113-
017-
1101B— an application to retroactively replace six original windows with vinyl replacement windows was denied. COA #1989-
0118 permitted the installation of a 2nd floor porch railing including posts, balusters, and railings. The full balustrade on top of
the balcony has been removed or was never installed. COA #1992-0618 permitted the replacement of existing copper lock
asphalt shingle roofing with 3 -in -1 tab asphalt shingles. COA #2015-1203 retroactively permitted a complete tear -off and re-
roofing with dimensional asphalt shingles, as well as the installation of new gutters.
APPLICATION ITEMS: "See attached. "
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT. The applicant has requested to construct a railing around the second story front
porch:
a. Approximately 3' tall railing comprised of
v. Lusters `Baroque" 32 '/" powder coated aluminum metal balusters.
vi. 4" posts capped in DecKorators 4x4 Copper Solar pyramid post cap lights.
The structure has been lacking a second story railing for some time. One file photo from 1985 shows a previous configuration
of the railing. This railing had four large column elements. The railing sections between those columns is made of panels of
wood, approximately 5" wide and 36" tall. A decorative cut out is visible in the top section of these panels.
STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES:
Edgewater Place Local Historic District
D. ENTRANCES, PORCHES, AND STEPS
The majority of the houses in the district have either an open or an enclosed porch across the front or on the side. Most porches
have either gabled or hipped roofs or are covered by the main roof of the house. A brick base with wood columns is common.
Required
Existing or original porches and steps, including handrails, balusters, columns, brackets, tiles and roof decorations shall be
retained or replace with replicas of the same design and materials when deteriorated beyond repair. Porches and additions
reflecting later architectural styles and which are important to the building's 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
Porches and steps that are important to the building's style and development may not be altered or removed.
Not Recommended
Original porch details should not be replaced with materials representing a different period or style from the original.
SITE VISIT REPORT: N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:.The proposed alteration does not replicate the previous version of the railing. Staff would
prefer to see the historic railing replicated; no railing has been present on the property for some time.
Prepared by
Adam Toering, Historic Preservation Specialist
Approved by
Elicia Feasel, Historic Preservation Administrator
PETITIONER COMMENTS:
Commissioner Gelfman asked Administrator Feasel whether the project should be reviewed without the
applicant in attendance.
Administrator Feasel expressed interest in moving forward with a conditional approval to allow staff to
continue to work with the applicant to find a better solution to the railing.
Specialist Toering further explained that this is one of the projects that was not quite appropriate to
administratively approve, because the project was a departure from the historic railing.
Administrator Feasel spoke with the property owner earlier and they expressed that they would
work with staff to get a better railing. Staff administratively approved other aspects of this
project, but this is a departure from the original.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
N/A
PUBLIC DISCUSSION:
i100
Commissioner Andrews stated she would support the railing looking more like the photographic
evidence from 1985.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko expressed concern for the proposed railing and had concerns about the
implication of that railing with regards to the other projects on the property.
Commissioner Andrews asked for clarification on what was previously administratively approved.
Specialist Toering explained that there was a fire at this property and that in 2017 multiple windows
were replaced without COA with vinyl windows, that staff has worked with the property owner
to encourage him to replace those with aluminum -clad windows which he is now doing. Staff
continue to work with this property owner to bring about a better solution.
Administrator Feasel expressed concern that the historic railing may have had masonry pillars, that may
cause some complication with reconstruction.
Commissioner Stalheim stated that he thought they were probably masonry, but that the details of the
railing need to be replicated.
Commissioner Andrews made a motion to approve with staff recommendations COA
#2020-0313A to have the railing match the picture from 1985 as close as possible.
Seconded by Commissioner Deegan.
Six in favor, none opposed.
Vote: 6 - 0. Motion to approve COA #2020-0313A passes with conditions.
5. 1614 East Wayne Street #2020-0402 #7796-87 East Wayne
Street Historic District
Representation: Julie Storme, 1614 East Wayne Street
STAFF REPORT
CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR A
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
Date: 9 June 2020
Application Number: 2020-0402
Property Location: 1614 East Wayne Street
Architectural Style/Date/Architect or Builder: Renaissance / 1929 / H.R.
Stapp and Whitcomb and Keller
Property Owner: Julie Storme and Serge Silvestri
Landmark or District Designation: East Wayne Street Local District
#7796-87
Rating: Contributing
DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTUREI SITE: Two story frame house with irregular plan has hip roof with boxed eaves. Roof is
covered with asphalt shingles. Walls are brick painted white. Windows are 8/1 double hung with brick header course and sills.
There are two sets of 10 lite French doors at first floor. The central entry gabled roof with open arch under architrave is
supported by paired slender square box columns. A one-story flat roof wing was enclosed in 1957 with aluminum windows.
ALTERATIONS: AA 2020-0601 renewed approval for garage repairs and front storm door replacement. AA 2019-0923
approved removal of silver maple tree in rear yard with replacement. RME 2017-1117A approved garage repairs and back storm
door replacement. COA 2016-1004 approved front porch replacement in kind. COA 2007-0820A approved in kind porch
replacement and planters. COA 1997-0718 approved reroof and masonry repairs.
APPLICATION ITEMS: "Replace 7 circa 1950 single hung aluminum windows (and storm windows) that are not original to
the house with 7 Sunrise (manufacturer) double hung vinyl windows with full screens, The top sash of the two windows facing
the street will be colonial -style simulated divided light with grids on both the exterior and the interior in order to match the style
of the original windows on the top floor, (The bottom floor of the original house has divided light French doors,) The window
frames will be while in color in order to match the house which is brick painted white. The current aluminum windows are over
50 years old and in a deteriorated state (see attached photos). "
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT: The applicant has requested approval to:
A. Replace seven metal windows on the side one-story room with new vinyl windows
a. New windows will have simulated divided lite pattern same as main house and will better resemble
windows on main house.
STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES: EAST WAYNE STREET
II. 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.
SITE VISIT REPORT: N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION. Staff recommends replacement of aluminum windows and storm windows with new
windows, preferably in a material other than vinyl (could consider wood, aluminum clad, fiberglass extruded, etc.), however, the
proposed window units better resemble the units on the main house.
Prepared by
Elicia Feasel, Historic Preservation Administrator
PETITIONER COMMENTS:
Ms. Storme stated that she did research windows and understood that vinyl is not the preferred
replacement option. The original windows are no longer manufactured. She did look into
fiberglass and aluminum clad wood. The cost is almost double what would be otherwise. The
selected windows are not the least expensive option. Almost any new window will be an
improvement to what is currently there, and they were not original to the house.
Commissioner Gelfman stated that the rate of the house is Contributing and that staff bore that in mind
when making the recommendation.
Ms. Storme stated that the project needs to go forward because her older father will need to be living on
the ground floor as he ages in place, that she plans to replace Lite roof in a couple of years, and
that the existing windows are not good, and the house is in the condition it is despite the
windows.
Commissioner Andrews asked for clarification regarding the window replacement style.
Ms. Storme stated that the windows would have simulated divided light and that the contractor had
previously replaced windows on the property to the east of her house, and that project had
involved replacing windows that were original to the house. She does not feel that replacing
these non -original windows would detract from the character of the house or the neighborhood,
and she would not consider replacing the original windows of her house elsewhere.
Administrator Feasel clarified that during the COVID emergency staff has dialogued extensively with
our legal representation to ensure that staff was properly administratively approving projects that
are in compliance with the applicable standards and guidelines. This project was very close to
being administratively approved, these windows are less conspicuous from the street view, the
windows that are currently in place may or may not be original to the addition, but they do not
match the windows installed on the original house. Although these windows are vinyl, they do
have simulated divided-lites, where the pattern of the original windows will be replicated. The
selected windows do replicate the pattern and style of the original windows, but staff did not feel
quite comfortable administratively approving it, so you are receiving it. Although staff
recommended a different window, staff does support the selected product.
Ms. Storme clarified that she further considered other material options.
Commissioner Andrews clarified as to which windows on the house were original and received
confirmation that the second story windows were original.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko asked for clarification as to whether this area was a later addition.
Ms. Storme clarified that there was at one point an out -door grill on the inside of the structure in one of
these spaces based upon a previous project. It is possible that this was added in 1949.
Specialist Toering clarified that he checked the 1932 Assessor Card and he unfortunately did not include
that with the packet, but it did reveal that this was a later addition.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko stated that this was a project that needs to move forward.
Commissioner Deegan agreed, as did Commissioner Stalheim.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION:
N/A
Commissioner Andrews made a motion to approve COA #2020-0402. Seconded by
Commissioner Tiffany.
Six in favor, none opposed.
Vote: 6 — 0. Motion to approve COA #2020-0402 passes.
6. 1515 East Wayne Street #2020-0403 #7796-87 East Wayne
Street Historic District
Representation: Jim and Mia Shaffer, 1530 East Jefferson Street
STAFF REPORT
CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR A
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
Date: 9 June 2020
Application Number: 2020-0403
Property Location: 1515 East Wayne Street
Architectural Style/Date/Architect or Builder: Colonial Revival / 1926 / H.R.
Stapp
Property Owner: James and Emilia Shaffer
Landmark or District Designation: East Wayne Street Local District
#7796-87
Rating: Contributing
DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURE/ SITE: The house at 1515 E. Wayne is a 2 story frame construction set upon an irregular
floor plan. It has a gable roof with returns covered with asphalt shingles. The windows are 6/1 double hung with louvered
shutters. The entry is a single gable canopy with pedimented with arch under.
ALTERATIONS: The house has aluminum siding and storm windows. There is a one story east wing addition. There is a 2
story gable roof rear wing addition that was built in 1930. COA#2006-1 1 13 documents the replacement of 8 south facing
windows a one east second floor window with Crestline's Crestfit Vinyl Clad wood pocket replacement windows 6/1. COA
2009-0831 A allowed for the replacement of 12 windows on the 1030 addition and two bathroom windows with custom
Crestline Crestfit Vinyl Clad wood pocket replacement windows.
APPLICATION ITEMS: ""Fencing. (Installation of black chain link fence) "
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT: The applicant has retroactively applied to install chain link fencing:
A. Black chainlink fence encloses the side yard of 1515 East Wayne.
a. Dimensions: 42' on the eastern edge, 57' behind the bushes along East Wayne Street, and 21' connecting
back to the house.
This property includes lots 53 and 54 of the Sunnymede plot, as well as the I P of the East Side of Lot 55.
Prior to the erection of this fence, the Commission approved the removal of the chain link fence and tennis court at 1417 East
Wayne Street in October of 2017. Many properties have privacy fences of various materials (including chain link) enclosing
rear yards. For example, 1402 East Wayne Street has a 4' chain link fence visible from the street enclosing the rear yard: it is
unknown if this predates the establishment of the Local Historic District.
Three properties fail to comply with the Standards and Guidelines requirement that fencing not be forward of the building
setback: 1246 East Jefferson (chain link fence obscured by hedge along Sunnyside Avenue), 1 102 East Wayne Street (`historic'
wrought iron fence atop a masonry embankment wall) and 304 Twyckenham Drive (two rail 4' `estate fence').
STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES: EAST WAYNE STREET
LTHE ENVIRONMENT
A.THE DISTRICT ENVIRONMENT —The district is characterized by its proximity to downtown South Bend. It
encompasses several blocks of East Wayne Street, North and South, from Eddy Street east to Greenlawn and the south side of
Jefferson Boulevard from Eddy Street east to Sunnyside Avenue. The district is bounded on the north by Jefferson Boulevard
from Eddy Street to Sunnyside Avenue and then by the north property lines by the Wayne Street properties to Greenlawn. The
south boundary is the southern right of way of the alley or the southern property lines of East Wayne Street, South.
Unique features of the neighborhood include the island of homes between East Wayne Street North and East Wayne Street
South, the parks at each end of the island, and the brick pillars at the entrance way (Eddy Street) to the subdivision with signage
reading "Whitecomb and Keller's Sunnymede."
Required
Distinctive existing features such as brick entry pillars, parks, gardens, streetlights, fences, signs, walkways, streets and
building setbacks shall be retained. Major landscaping items, fencing, walkways, streetlights, signs and benches shall be
compatible with the character of the neighborhood in size, scale, material, and color. Street lighting should b e maintained at
levels recommended by the Illuminating Engineering Society. Light sources must have spectral distribution in all color
ranges. Older light fixtures and supporting posts must be similar in proportion, scale, size, shape, style, and appearance to the
existing historic lamps. Streetlights shall be placed so that adequate illumination is afforded all sections of public sidewalks.
Recommended
Whenever possible, the original features should be restored. Plant materials and trees in close proximity to buildings, sidewalks
or streets that are causing deterioration to those elements should be removed. If large shrubs become unsightly to the point of
detracting from the historic character of the house or site, they should be cutback and allowed to rejuvenate. Dead and
deceased material should be selectively removed. Trees and major landscaping elements that must be removed for one reason or
another should be immediately replaced by suitable flora. When replacement of utility poles or power supply lines is necessary,
consideration should be given to underground conduits or utility poles erected along rear property lines.
The curb height should be sufficient to maintain adequate drainage of the street. If the older light fixtures are taken down by
the city, they should be reserved for use in the historic district. Light fixtures on top of the brick pillars at the Eddy Street
entryway should be replaced according to these standards
Prohibited
Existing relationships of buildings and their environments shall not be destroyed through widening existing streets, application
of asphalt or other bituminous coverings, or by introducing new streets or parking lots. Signs, streetlights, benches, major
landscaping items, fencing, walkways, and paving materials which are out of scale or inappropriate to the neighborhood may
not be used. The introduction of heavy trucks or smaller vehicles in the district shall be prohibited.
Not Recommended
High-intensity overhead streetlights should not be used.
B. BUILDING SITE, LANDSCAPING AND ACCESSORIES
Individual properties in the district are characterized by a house located in the center of a flat lawn, often divided by a walk
leading to the front entrance. Several of the residences are sited on two or more building lots; ho wever, the preponderance of
the homes has been erected on a single lot. Most of the properties include a double garage, usually located at the rear of t he
property. The majority of garages are accessed from the alley. There are also a few homes with a co vered carport layout
located at the rear of the property, as well as a few with circular driveways. Driveway and sidewalk materials include concrete,
asphalt and brick. All of the properties have trees and most have trimmed shrubbery and/or hedges. Most of the houses conform
to a uniform setback line within each block.
Required
Major landscaping items, fencing, walkways, private yard lights, signs (house numbers) and benches which reflect the
property's history and development shall be retained. Dominant land contours shall be retained. Structures such as gazebos
patio decks, fixed barbecue pits, swimming pools, tennis courts, greenhouses, new walls, fountains, fixed garden furniture,
trellises and other similar structures shall be compatible to the historic character of the site and the neighborhood and
inconspicuous when viewed from a public walkway.
Recommended
New site work should be based upon actual knowledge of the past appearance of the property found in photographs, drawings
and newspapers. New site work should be appropriate to existing surroundings site elements in scale, type and appearance.
Plant materials and trees in close proximity to the building that are causing deterioration to the building's historic fabric should
be removed. However, trees and plant materials that must be removed should be immediately replaced by suitable
flora. All high intensity security lights should be approved b y the Historic Preservation Commission.
Prohibited
No changes may be made to the appearance of the site by removing major landscaping items, trees, fencing, walkways,
outbuildings or other elements before evaluating their importance to the property's history and development. Front yard areas
shall not be transformed into parking lots nor paved nor blacktopped. Front yard areas shall not be fenced and fences shall not
extend forward beyond the setback line of the house. The installation of unsightly devices such as television reception dishes
and solar collectors shall be permitted in areas where they can be viewed from the public thoroughfare.
Not Recommended
Telephone or utility poles with high-intensity overhead lights should be installed so that they cannot be seen from the
thoroughfare.
SITE VISIT REPORT: N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Standards and Guidelines are explicit that "fences shall not extend forward
beyond the setback line of the house." Staff recommends denial.
Prepared by
Adam Toering, Historic Preservation Specialist
Approved by
Elicia Feasel, Historic Preservation Administrator
PETITIONER COMMENTS:
Mr. Shaffer stated that they bought the house — which is directly behind their house — as a yard for their
grandkids because their property doesn't have a big back yard. Their property on Jefferson is
not part of the historic district and that they weren't familiar with the rules; he candidly admitted
that this was their responsibility. The people who sold the property to them did not tell them.
They added the chain link fence thinking it would be the least visible, and that they intended to
add greenery. They checked with the neighbors and they were ok with it. Then they received
the notification that they were in violation. They candidly accepted that they were ignorant and
that it wasn't an excuse.
Commissioner Gelfman thanked the homeowners for their candidness.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko asked what they planned to do with the house.
Mr. Shaffer clarified that they had a large family and that it would be used by their children when they
come to town, and that they do not intend to rent the property out.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko clarified that she is curious about the future replatting of the property
or whether it would be combined with the property on Jefferson.
Mr. Shaffer stated they removed the fence at the rear of their Jefferson property around their pool, which
then required that they have a fence elsewhere to comply with the fence requirement for the
pool. And that if they went to sell the property, they would be forced to erect a new fence along
the property line.
Commissioner Down-Krostenko asked for clarification regarding double -lot properties that have fences,
that are technically are in violation of the guidelines.
Specialist Toering clarified that there are at least three lots that have fences forward of the set -back lines.
Administrator Feasel clarified that these may have been approved by the Commission.
Specialist Toering clarified that there is a fence at the west end of East Wayne Street on Eddy Street, and
another on the corner of Jefferson that is quite obscured by greenery that is quite old. Both of
these fences are believed to predate the establishment of the district. All of these properties
indicated are corner lots.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko asked for clarification regarding the precedence that would be set by
approving this project, specifically with regards to double -lot properties that were not corner
lots.
Commissioner Deegan clarified that this property would be the only lot that would have fence material
forward of the setback, but it is not the only lot that is a double lot.
Commissioner Gelfman asked for clarification on the amount of the setback.
Mr. Shaffer stated that the setback may be some 20' to the hedge.
Specialist Toering approximated the measurement of the setback to the house (based upon MACOG's
website) to be
Commissioner Andrews asked if replatting the property should be more concerning to the Commission.
Legal Counsel Kennedy clarified that this would be a zoning administration question. Further, if the
fence does not comply with the zoning setback.
Specialist Toering clarified that were the project applied for the fence in line with the setback of the
house, staff would have administratively approved the project, as it would then comply with the
standards and guidelines.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko asked for clarification as to whether the existing fence was in violation
of both the Zoning ordinance and Historic Preservation.
Specialist Toering clarified that the fence is violation of the Historic Preservation Standards &
Guidelines.
Mr. Shaffer stated that `they' said it was ok.
Legal Counsel Kennedy clarified that the zoning ordinance is not necessarily the Commission's concern,
but whether the project complied with the Standards & Guidelines.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
N/A
PUBLIC DISCUSSION:
N/A
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko made a motion to deny COA#2020-0403, in favor of the
relocation of the fence along the sidewalk back so that it is parallel to the corner
of the house. Seconded by Commissioner Stalheim.
Six in favor, none opposed.
Vote: 6 — 0. Motion to deny COA #2020-0403 passes.
Legal Counsel Kennedy clarified that, in motions for denial, Commissioners are
required to state their reasons for denial. Roll was called.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko (AYE): I voted to deny the application as submitted because
it is in clear violation of the Standards and Guidelines.
Commissioner Deegan (AYE): I vote `aye' because page 38 of the East Wayne Street
Standards and Guidelines state that the "Front yard areas shall not be fenced and
fences shall not extend forward beyond the setback line of the house." If the fence is
moved to the setback line of the house the yard will be open.
Commissioner Ponder (AYE): I vote to deny because it went against the guidelines and it was
a retroactive COA.
Commissioner Stalheim (AYE): I [vote to deny] for the same reasons noted.
Commissioner Tiffany (AYE): I [vote to] deny because it goes against the guidelines.
Commissioner Gelfman (AYE): I also [vote to] deny, because it was against the guidelines, but
also because we just need to take it back to the edge of the house.
Certificate of Appropriateness #2020-0403 is denied.
7. 729 Cottage Grove #2020-0406 #8055-90 Local Landmark
Representation: Michael Hebbeler, 729 Cottage Grove
STAFF REPORT
CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR A
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
Date: June 9, 2020
Application Number: 2020-0406
Property Location: 729 Cottage Grove
Architectural Style/Date/Architect or Builder: Free Classic / 1902 / "Stretch House"
Property Owner: Michael Hebbeler
Landmark or District Designation: Local Landmark, Ordinance #8055-90
Rating: Outstanding
DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURE/SITE: Classic Revival House with Prairie Influences that was built in 1905 for Fred and
Margaret Stretch remodeled around 1917 converting it into a duplex. This two-story Free Classic is rectangular in construction
and sits on a concrete block foundation. Walls are wood clapboard with comerboards. The roof is hip with gables and boxed
returns covered with asphalt shingle. The front of the structure has a'/ length porch with doric columns set upon brick piers and
has a brick rail with a stone cap. There is an entablature over the entrance. Windows are mostly 1/1 original wood double hung.
There is a Palladian window in front dormer. Front door is wood panel with sidelights and there are two French doors in porch.
ALTERATIONS: RME 2015-1129 permitted tear off and re -roof with new architectural asphalt shingles and removal of
volunteer trees. COA 2005-0329A permitted removal of several hemlock trees and for replacement trees. COA 2005-0329B
permitted new 6" K -style gutter installation on house. 1990-0726 allowed for replacement of existing fiberglass garage door
with new wood three panel door.
APPLICATION ITEMS: "Replace metal framed storm windows with double pane high efficiency windows (Pella); replace
exterior door w/cracked glass and /eadpaint with security door. Replacements made to increase safety and energy efficiency.
Trim new windows in same color as original existing structure (pre -renovation). Use original siding to cover gaps. Paint wood
in window cavities to match existing paint scheme. Paint security door to match original. "
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT: The applicant has requested retroactive approval to:
I . Replace four metal windows on the rear facade of rear porch with two vinyl windows.
2. Replace three metal windows on the side fagade of rear porch with one vinyl window.
3. Install a rear deck structure off rear door using treated wood.
4. Replace wood door with 2'x2' window with new metal door with half lite window at top.
SITE VISIT REPORT: N/A
STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES: Local Landmark "Group B"
The Commission has the authority to determine the architectural merits and the extent of any proposed treatment, renovation, or
addition to a historic landmark. The commission will require drawings, plans, specifications, and/or samples where appropriate.
A. Maintenance
The maintenance of any historical structure or site shall in no way involve any direct physical change except
for the general cleaning and upkeep of the landmark. The Commission shall encourage the proper maintenance of
all structure or sites.
B. Treatment
Treatment shall be defined as any change of surface materials that will not alter the style or original form.
Such improvements include re -roofing, glazing, or landscaping lawns 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. Although these kinds of changes may not require a Building Permit, a Certificate
of Appropriateness may be necessary. The commission should review the proposed treatment for character
and style consistency with the original surfaces.
C. Renovation and Additions
Renovation is the modification of a structure, which does not alter the general massing while an addition, is a
change in mass. A modification, which involves the removal of a part of the landmark, should be considered under
demolition (see demolition).
Additions to landmarks should not detract from the original form and unity of the landmark and should not cover
singular examples of architectural detail. Additions to landmarks should be added in a manner that does not disrupt
the visible unity of overall appearance of the site. The proportions, materials and ratios of the existing structures
should be carried through in the additions. Care should be taken not to change or alter the following:
1. StructureNecessary structural improvements, where safety demands should be accomplished in such a
way as to cause minimal visual change to the original style and construction.
2. Material—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.
a. wood—all wood trim should conform with existing trim in shape and size.
b. siding materials—the Commission discourages the covering or alteration of original
materials with additional siding. Structures already sided with incompatible materials
should be returned to a siding similar to the original when renovation is considered.
D. Demolition
Historic landmarks shall not be demolished. When a landmark poses a threat to the public safety, and demolition is
the only alternative, documentation by way of photographs, measured drawings, or other descriptive methods should
be made of both the exterior and interior of the landmark. The person or agency responsible for demolition of the
landmark shall be responsible for this documentation.
E. Moving
The moving of landmarks is discouraged, however, moving is preferred to demolition. When moving is necessary,
the owner of the landmark must apply to the Commission for a Certificate of Appropriateness.
F. Signs
No neon or flashing signs will be permitted unless they are original to the structure. Billboards and super -graphics
will also be disallowed. Only one appropriate identifying sign will be permitted per business.
G. Building Site and Landscaping (These standards apply to both A and B)
1. Required
Major landscaping items, trees, fencing, walkways, private yard lights, signs (house numbers) and benches which
reflect the property's history and development shall be retained. Dominant land contours shall be retained. Structures
such as: gazebos, patio decks, fixed barbecue pits, swimming pools, tennis courts, green houses, new walls, fountains,
fixed garden furniture, trellises, and other similar structures shall be compatible to the historic character of the site and
neighborhood and inconspicuous when vicwcd from a public way.
2. Recommended
New site work should be based upon actual knowledge of the past appearance of the property found in photographs,
drawings, and newspapers. Plant materials and trees in close proximity to the building that are causing deterioration
to the buildings historic fabric should be removed. However, trees and plant materials that must be removed should
be immediately replaced by suitable flora. Front yard areas should not be fenced except in cases where historic
documentation would indicate such fencing appropriate. Fencing should be in character with the buildings style,
materials, and scale.
3. Prohibited
No changes may be made to the appearance of the site by removing major landscaping items, trees, fencing,
walkways, outbuildings, and other elements before evaluating their importance to the property's history and
development. Front yard areas shall not be transformed into parking lots nor paved nor blacktopped. The installation
of unsightly devices such as TV reception dishes and solar collectors shall not be permitted in areas where they can be
viewed from public thoroughfares.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends replacement of aluminum storm windows with new windows, in a
material other than vinyl (could consider wood, aluminum clad, fiberglass extruded, etc.), in the same quantity and
configuration as existed originally. Staff recommends installation of a new rear deck. Staff recommends reinstallation of the
original door, upgrading the glass, and adding a new storm door.
Prepared by
Elicia Feasel
Historic Preservation Administrator
PETITIONER COMMENTS:
Mr. Hebbeler stated that he appreciated and honored the historic designation of the house and that he has
spent a fair amount time and resources on the front of the house, and stated that he did not know
the rear of the house was governed by the historic designation. His wife was pregnant with
twins as of last August, they live on the first floor, they wanted to enhance and ensure the safety
of the back space which was a three -seasons room, the windows were aluminum storms around
the siding, the space was not inhabitable all year round. He considers the windows an upgrade
to the space, and that the previous windows were not original to the house.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko asked for clarification for the removal of the number of windows and
reconstruction.
Mr. Hebbeler stated that they intended to replace the central windows with new siding material. He
would be happy to take recommendations for replacement material.
Commissioner Stalheim asked what the space was being used for.
Mr. Hebbeler expressed that it is his child's nursery.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko indicated that the area should be sided, and that the siding should
`feathered' in so that it blends in. There is still sill and the trim that goes all the way around the
space, so that will complicate the appearance. No matter what you do, there's still an open
space that used to be a window. She further asked for clarification about the door that is
installed.
Commissioner Gelfman asked if there was a different door at this rear location and what material it was
made out of.
Mr. Hebbeler stated that there was a wood door with a large window, and that it has been removed.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko stated that this door is not compatible with the style of the house.
Commissioner Stalheim stated that the door would be a half -lite door, which would be more in keeping
with the style of the house.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko stated that the door should not be a divided half lite, but a solid half -
lite, and that she would want the selection of the door to be managed by Staff.
Administrator Feasel stated that the door selection needs further review, and that if the original door
were to have been retained, energy efficiency could have been gained by adding a storm door.
Staff would be ok with alternative materials for a replacement door were it to not have a divided -
lite pattern.
Mr. Hebbeler stated that a predominantly glass door poses some security concerns, and that there have
been break-ins at this property before (involving climbing a tree), and because of that he is
sensitive to the security issues because of that.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko stated that she has been involved with a door that had a break-in, but
there was divided lite, and that there are now more secure glass that can be acquired, and that at
that point using a crowbar on the door itself would pose a greater security concern.
Commissioner Gelfman inquired as to when this was added to the house.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko approximated after 1910.
Administrator Feasel stated that it was not in the 1917 Sanborn, but it is in the 1945 Sanborn map.
Commissioner Gelfman stated that this house is rated Outstanding and the long-term preservation of the
structure should be maintained.
Specialist Toering asked if there was an additional material in the gable above the windows.
Mr. Hebbeler explained that it was just siding.
Commissioner Deegan asked why the windows were being removed.
Mr. Hebbeler explained that it was for energy efficiency and to cut down on the light in the space.
Commissioner Stalheim stated this is the rear of the property, and that these must be allowed to evolve.
These modifications can be reversed at a later date. If a simple, flat siding panel could fill the
area in but still be reversible.
Commissioner Gelfman conveyed that linking the front and the back of the house stylistically should be
a priority.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko again reiterated that feathering the siding would be less stylistically
jarring, which would be less of an overall distraction. The space is still a projection.
Commissioner Gelfinan expressed that she would like for the previous windows to be put back in based
upon the Google Street view from 2018.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko clarified that these windows are visible from the street, and asked how
many units this house is, and how many bedrooms there are on the first floor.
Mr. Hebbeler stated that there are three units and only one bedroom on the first floor. He did not
disagree about the aesthetics, but he is trying to make this into a useable, practical room.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Andrews stated that it is unfortunate that you can't `unknow' things. She would prefer
the windows to stay. As the mother of three children she sympathizes with the applicant, but she
is concerned that we are making a short-term solution that will continue to live -on after the
home changes hands.
Commissioner Stalheim stated that he agreed, but he is concerned for the children's space.
Commissioner Tiffany expressed concern as to what kind of heat is in this space.
The homeowner expressed that there is floor hot-water radiant heating.
Commissioner Tiffany said from a safety perspective, perhaps higher windows would be viable.
Commissioner Deegan stated that he understands the replacement of the windows but would prefer to
see all the windows replaced. Despite the cost, he would believe that higher expense incurred
may result in a better product. That there may be internal remediations, but they may not be
perfect, but little people grow so you can work around it.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko expressed that she is conflicted, and that this is retroactive, and that
may be in violation of the standards and that the Commission must be careful or they won't be
able to do anything.
Commissioner Gelfman brought up the construction of the deck.
Mr. Hebbeler stated that the project was incomplete, that it is a landing and steps to the rear door.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko asked if staff was ok with this stair project.
Mr. Hebbeler stated that this was open for reconstruction and was temporary. He would like to keep
what was installed, if allowed.
Commissioner Stalheim clarified the accepted dimensions of steps per code, and the accepted distance
between balustrades.
Commissioner Gelfinan stated that before the steps are approved, they should be code compliant.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION:
N/A
Administrator Feasel clarified that if a project exceeds $500, it would require a building permit.
Attaining a building permit would clarify any code issues related to construction of stairs.
Commissioner Stalheim stated that it would be appropriate to remand to staff the construction of the
steps.
Commissioner Gelfman divided the project into separate components.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko made a motion to reject COA 2020-0406 as pertains to
the removal of the original windows and the changing of the confirmation of the
windows. Seconded by Commissioner Andrews.
Roll was called.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko (Aye): This is a visible part of the house and it changes the
appearances dramatically.
Commissioner Deegan (Aye): I would agree, it wouldn't be in context of the rest of the historic
value of the house. I would also say I reject it because it is not clear how the infill of
those missing windows would be able to preserve the house and its character.
Commissioner Andrews (Aye): I'm rejecting because it goes against the appearance of the
house and it is visible from the street, and it is a retroactive application.
Commissioner Stalheim (Aye): I am rejecting because the house is rated Outstanding and I
believe there could be a potentially better middle ground.
Commissioner Tiffany (Aye): I reject it because the rating is Outstanding, it is visible from the
street, and the infill — maybe if he did something else there it would look different
from the road, but right now...
Commissioner Gelfman (Aye): I reject it because of the Outstanding rating of the house, and
the fact that it changes dramatically the look of this particular area of the house, from
the street especially.
Six in favor, none opposed.
Vote: 6 — 0. Motion to deny COA #2020-0406, item 1 "Window Replacement" passes.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko made a motion to remand to staff COA #2020-0406,
section II regarding the door, which would have a half -lite with no divisions, and
that the material of the door be up to the discretion of the staff. Seconded by
Commissioner Tiffany.
Six in favor, none opposed.
Vote: 6 — 0. Motion to remand to staff COA #2020-0406, item 2 "Door" passes.
Commissioner Stalheim made a motion to approve #2020-0406, item 3 "Landing / Stairs"
to be remanded to staff for approval of the design, with confirmation of
appropriate building code. Seconded by Commissioner Andrews.
Six in favor, none opposed.
Vote: 6 — 0. Motion remand to staff COA #2020-0406, item 3 "Door" passes.
IV. PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR
N/A
V. REGULAR BUSINESS
A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
i. Staff asked for minutes to be tabled until the next meeting for approval.
B. STAFF REPORTS
i. Administrative Approvals — Staff indicated that they were very busy.
Commissioner Andrews asked about the Rose Garden project.
Administrator Feasel clarified that this was separate from the Phase 2
Leeper Park projects.
Commissioner Gelfman clarified that the location of the Rose Garden in
relation to the Navarre Cabin, and that there is a rumored to be
projects elsewhere in the park coming.
Commissioner Gelfinan complimented Larry Clifford's work on the Rose
Garden.
Specialist Toering spoke briefly about the work being executed at 516 South
Michigan to stabilize the property, which is in close proximity to
the homeless encampment. This structure remains one of Staff's
most concerning properties.
Administrator Feasel clarified that Staff immediately uploads
administratively approvals as soon as they are processed.
Specialist Toering explained that staff have been negotiating with property
owners regarding their projects to ensure the timely processing of
projects during the ongoing COVID emergency.
C. COMMITTEE REPORTS
i. Disposition of Historic Preservation Assets
ii. Standards Update
VI. OLD BUSINESS
VII. NEW BUSINESS
VIII. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS
IV. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Andrews made a motion to adjourn. Seconded by Commissioner Stalheim.
Six in favor, none opposed.
Vote: 6 — 0. Meeting adjourned at 9:35 pm.
Attest:
1
c'YD
Sarah Andrews, ecretary Date