HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOA APPLICATION #2020-0302: NORTHERN INDIANA HISTORIC SOCIETY INC. V. SOUTH BEND HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSIONFiled in Cls k s Office
r-=OZO20 STATE OF INDIANA ) AU
SS:
COUNTY OF ST. JOSEPH ) LCRK, SOUTH DAWNM BEND, IN
NORTHERN INDIANA
HISTORICAL SOCIETY, INC.,
D/B/A THE HISTORY MUSEUM,
Appellant,
LTA
CITY OF SOUTH BEND )
HISTORIC PRESERVATION )
COMMISSION, )
Appellee. )
APPEAL NO. COA#2020-0302
CERTIFICATION OF RECORD
I, Elicia Feasel, Historic Preservation Administrator for the City of South Bend, Indiana
certify that:
1. I am the Historic Preservation Administrator for the City of South Bend, Indiana, and
act as staff to the Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph
County (the "Commission").
2. I am the custodian of records for the Commission.
3. Copies of the following documents, which are attached to this Certification of Record,
are true and complete copies of records in my custody and the custody of the
Commission:
a) Meeting Agenda for the City of South Bend Historic Preservation Commission
on March 16, 2020 that was cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic;
1 .
b) Pierre Navarre Cabin, Leeper Park — COA#2020-0302 Packet dated March 9,
2020;
c) Meeting Agenda for the City of South Bend Historic Preservation Commission
on April 20, 2020 that was cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic;
1
d) Meeting Agenda for the City of South Bend Historic Preservation Commission
on May 18, 2020 that was cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic;
e) Meeting Agenda for the City of South Bend Historic Preservation Commission
on June 15, 2020;
f) Minutes of the Meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend
and St. Joseph County on June 15, 2020, approved by the Commission on
August 17, 2020; and
g) Pierre Navarre Cabin, Leeper Park Denial Letter for COA#2020-0302 issued to
Brian Harding, Kristen Erickson, and The History Museum, dated June 16,
2020.
4. The attached records are maintained in the course of regularly conducted activity and
are all of documents of record pertaining to COA#2020-0302.
I hereby certify under the penalties for perjury that the foregoing representations are true
and accurate.
Dated: August 20, 2020 A
Elicia Fe el, Historic Preservation Administrator
City of South Bend
STATE OF INDIANA )
) SS:
COUNTY OF ST. JOSEPH )
Before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public for Porter County and the State of Indiana, this
20th day of August, 2020, personally appeared, Elicia Feasel, to me known as the Historic Preservation
Administrator for the City of South Bend and acknowledged execution of the foregoing Certification
of Record.
F, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed my official seal.
JULIE ANNE WISNER
NotaryPublic-Seal
Porter County -State of Indiana
Commission Number 702018
My Commission Expires Jun 25, 2025
Julie 416c Wisner, Notary Public
Commission expires: June 25, 2025 Resident of St. Joseph County, Indiana
/90k B -"GENA OR:.
l ..''..
y, . GITY OF SOUTH BEND �~
,;r c
�� HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ,'
The MONDAY, MARCH 16, 2020 meeting of the
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION of SOUTH BEND and St.
JOSEPH COUNTY
has been CANCELED.
The next meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission will be
Monday, April 20th, 2020
COUNTY—CITY BUILDING. 13TH FLOOR. ROOM 1308 at 5:30 PM
Telephone interpreter service is available upon request free of charge for individuals with limited English
proficiency. Auxiliary aid or other services are available upon request free of charge.
Please give reasonable advance request when possible.
MICHELE .FLFMh4 A CER'TIF:ED IJCAL COVERMMENT E'LICIA F-,A5FT
PRESTOENT OF THF NA-TOHAL PARA SERVICE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ADwNLSTRATON
EXCELLENCE i ACCOUNTABILITY INNOVATION ; INCLUSION i EMPOWERMENT
1400SCounty-City Building. 227W. Jefferson Blvd, South Bend. Indiana 46601 p574.235.9371 f574,235.9201 southbendin.gov
GTH
r� _.
y . CITY OF SOUTH BEND
y HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MEETING AGENDA—MONDAY, MARCH 16, 2020 — 5:30 PM
COUNTY — CITY BUILDING, 13'" FLOOR, ROOM 1308
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
Ili. PUBLIC HEARING
a. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
i. 2020-0224 713 W LaSalle Local Landmark Ordinance No. 7858-88; National
Register of Historic Places West LaSalle District
ii. 2020-0224A 617-619 Cushing Local Landmark Ordinance No. 8142-90
iii. 2020-0302 907 Riverside Local Landmark Ordinance No. 8734-96; National
Register of Historic Places Leeper Park
IV. PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR
V. HPC TRAINING
a. Historic Preservation 201—led by Elicia Feasel, historic preservation administrator and Adam Toering,
historic preservation specialist
A. REGULAR BUSINESS
a. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
I. January21,2020
ii. February 17, 2020
b. STAFF REPORTS
i. Administrative Approvals
c. COMMITTEE REPORTS
i. Disposition of Historic Preservation Assets
ii. Standards Update
VII. OLD BUSINESS
VIII. NEW BUSINESS
IX. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS
X. ADJOURNMENT
Telephone interpreter service is available upon requestfree of charge for individuals with limited English
proficiency. Auxiliary aid or other services are available upon request free of charge.
Please give reasonable advance reauest when oossible.
M1eH:E GELMAN A Cr:Ri.l' LC(Af G ,k,,mei' Eiu.in FeA�ri.
PNESCGENT OF THF NATf ONA_ PiW &IRVICE H11TORIi PRTS-RV1T:o:i Au.ii N_FTR POP
EXCELLENCE I ACCOUNTABILITY I INNOVATION I INCLUSION I EMPOWERMENT
14005 County -City Building j 227 W. Jefferson Blvd. ! South Bend, Indiana 466011 p 574.235.93711 f 574-235.92011 southbendin.gov
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/1897/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: Outstanding
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 cast/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.'
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 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: West Lagoon (Duck Pond), 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.
Leeper Park Cultural Landscape Round prepared by Westerly Group ror the Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph County,
May 1998.
=Ibid.
Ibid.
' Malcolm Caims. ASIA. "Leeper Park Historic District." National Register or Historic Places Inventory/Nomination Form, NR -141 L South Bend,
Sl. Joseph County, Indiana, June 15, 2000.
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 20t9-0109 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 II (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
[Hatch 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
formerly 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, SO' -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: l on each side of the 3 bump
outs along the walk, 1 close to Lafayette and I 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
confomt 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 a 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,
it. 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 bum pits,
iii. The removal/ grading of the small sections of stonewall,
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 lune of 2000, where the Navarre Cabin is indicated as Building `B4' 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 famished 541,000 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
casement 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 they 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
terns 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 alterations) can, or should, be removed.
5. Since if 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 reconunends 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 Space%, 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.
I. Views and vistas arc 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 he 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.
11. 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.
I. 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 he considered if they do not later the basic concept of the
historic landscape design.
4. Natural features (c.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 sante 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.
I. 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 habil, 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.
8. Consideration for removal of existing healthy vegetation materials and features will be given when it is in conflict with the original
design intent of the landscape, such as when an important vista has become overgrown or when plants have grown out of scale with
their intended purpose.
9. Maintenance of, removal of, and additions of vegetation materials and features should consider maintaining existing or intended
vistas and spaces. screening intrusions, creating new spaces where appropriate and maintaining defined areas of shade and sun.
10. Invasive vegetation shall be removed whenever technically feasible and shall be replaced with appropriate vegetation consistent
with the original design of the 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 diseased 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, Trials, Walks, etc.)
Refer to Sections 9.2, 9.5, 9.6, 9.6, 9.9 and 9.10 for additional Standards and Criteria that may apply.
I. 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 he considered if it can he 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, from, texture, and detail of installation.
7. If using the same material is not technically or economically feasible, then compatible substitute materials may be considered.
N. Alteration of existing or addition of new circulation materials and features will be considered if they do not alter the basic concept
of the historic landscape design.
9. Consideration will be given to an alternate paving material if it can be shown that its properties will improve the original or later
contributing design concept.
10. When replacement of circulation materials or features is necessary, it should be based on physical or documentary evidence.
11. Consideration for removal of existing circulation systems and features will be given when it is in conflict with the original design
intent of the landscape or when they arc no longer appropriate to their intended purposes.
12. No vehicles unless of or approved by the South Bend Parks Dcpartnhent shall he 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
front their destination, when said travel would cause them to cross any arca of the park which is not paved and designed for
vehicular traffic. Any damage caused by any vehicle, shall be repaired immediately to look as it did prior to said damage.
13. Encroachment of vehicles off the paved roadway of any area of the park shall not be permitted. Areas now used for vehicular
parking which are not part of the historical design 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.
I. 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. Aheration 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 pcmtitted as a means of retaining historic
waterways.
It. 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 fur 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 islands) 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 retain 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 Orales, Flagpoles,
Sculpture, Monuments, Memorials, Planters, Urns, etc.)
Refer in Sections 9,1 1 B, C and D regarding treatment of materials and features; and Sections 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, 9.6, 9.8, 9.9 and 9.10 for
additional Standards and Criteria that may apply.
1. All items listed herein shall be preserved:
a. The Duck Pond (West Lagoon), including the Island in the 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 Sheet and Michigan Street.
j. The Retaining Wall on the western boundary of the western section of the park.
Is. The Wall comprised of Cut Stone, which extended west-northwest and east-southeast from the southern approach of the
Leeper Park Bridge.
I. 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).
in. 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. All Manhole Coven, 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 Sheet which used to nm 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 m 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
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 [list 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 structrues, elements and materials that need to be preserved such as wall, terraces, arbors..
gazebos, follies, playground equipment, picnic shelters, plazas. greenhouses, steps, bridges, darns, 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 addhion/altcrations 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.
I. 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.
E 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 Uivision; 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.
I. Removal of the speakers atop Pump House Number 3 is encouraged.
B. Masonry (Brick, Stone, Terra Cotta, Concrete, Stucco, and Mortar)
I. [intentionally left blank]
2. Original or later contributing masonry materials, feature, detnils, 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 imperial, 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 he retained.
7. Deteriorating mortar shall be carefully removed by hand -taking thejoints,
8. Use of mechanical saws and hammers shall not be allowed.
9. Repointing mortar shall duplicate the original mortar in strength, composition, color, texture,joint size,joint profile and method of
application.
10. Sample panels of raking the joints and repointing shall be reviewed and approved by the staff of the Historic Preservation
Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph County.
11. Cleaning of masonry is discouraged and should be performed only when necessary to halt determination.
13. If the building is to be cleaned, the mildest method possible shall be used.
13. A test patch of the cleaning method(s) shall be reviewed and approved on site by staff of the Historic Preservation Commission of
South Bend and St. Joseph County. Test patches should always be carried out well in 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 an 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
I. [intentionally loft 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 will, 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 orthe building.
D. Archilecntral 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 m 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 approprinte 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 striation studies. If an adequate record does not exist repainting shall be done with colon 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. Cam izzo, 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 preservedk
(... J The Log Cabin known as the Navarre Nouse, 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
10
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
OF SOUTH BEND AND ST. JOSEPH COUNTY
LOCATION MAP - Map showing location of the property and surrounding area (Google Maps)
np�(��, • NJY,on'.iS FYI..
i wn 5�
lr p 0.rk l�C
NI@c Ale V, Pak
sr n
AERIEL MAP - highlighted property on map (MACOG)
i v.rnl 1 N a ala i ms uuo
,I i. ri•:5 '}u.�`� 4 s �']{��!�'Ijn('�. .���}���1{�Y �'j�-�I��J{�� 3
R4Aa. � ^f vC�x �"i •. , .r� „� �"R`'"�`td �`.v
Phone: 574/235.9371 Fax: 574/235.9021 EmaiL hpcsbsjc@southbendin.gov
i[
HISTORIC. PRESERVATION COMMISSION
OF SOUTH REND AND ST. JOSEPH COUNTY
PHOTOGRAPHS - Navarre Cabin, March 4, 2020
Phone: 574/235.9371 Fax: 574/235.9021 Email: hpcsbsjc@southbendin.gov
12
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
OF SOUTH BEND AND ST. JOSEPH COUNTY
PHOTOGRAPHS - Herb garden and burn pits, March 4, 2020
Phone: 574/235.9371 Fax: 5741235.9021 Email: hpcsbsjc@southbendin.gov
13
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
' OF SOUTH BEND AND ST. JOSEPH COUNTY
ra et County -City Building, South Bend, IN 46601
htlpJ/vn.sotnhbendin.govtgovemmenVdepertment/community-investment
�\ Phone: 574/235.9371 Fax: 574/235, 9021
Email: hpcsbsjc@soutbbendin.gov
Michele Gellman, President A Cenified Laval Government of the National Park Sewite Elicia Teasel, Historic Prescrvation
APPLICATION FOR A-CCRTIFICATE OF APPROPRI! ATENESS
Administrator
OFFICE USE ONL }5»»>UO V O'1' C/181PLF.TF .\Y} F.YTRIFS ('OV'I' \IYFD 'T 118 ROX«<c«OFFICF. USE ONLY
Date Received: Application Number:
Past Reviews: ❑ YES (Date of Lart Review)
Staff Approval authorized hy:
Historic Preservation Commission Review Date:
❑ Local Landmark
❑ National Landmark
Certificate OfAppro .."gu ss:
Denied ❑ Tabled
❑ local Historic District (Name) -
❑ National Register District (Name)
❑ NO
l'ille:
❑ Sent To Committee ❑ Approved and issued:
Address of property for proposed work; Pierre Navarre Cabin, Leeper Park, South Bend, IN 46601
(Sheet Number-,Sireel Name-City-Ztp)
Name or PropertyOwner(s): Venues Parks & Arts, City of South Bend phone#: 235-7645
Address of Property Owner(s): 219 S. St. Louis BLVD, South Bend, Indiana 46614
(Street Number -Street Name --City -Zip)
Name or L'ontractor(s): Tim Lykowski
Contractor Company Name: Lykowskl Construction, Inc.
Phone#: 574-291-8858
Address of Contractor company: 3158 West Ireland Road, South Bend IN 46614
(Sfreet Number .Street Name -Ciry--7.!p)
Current Use of Baiidtag: Historic Interpretive Site
(Single Famify-,Wrflf-Fdmify-Cummurciu!-Covernmem-fndnsfriaf-Yacun(- etc,)
l'ype of Building Construction: Vacant, Log Cabin
(;Vood Frarue-Brick-Sfwre-�Sfeef-Conerele-Other)
Proposed Work: (more than one e Landscapp ❑
box may be checked) L1New ElRe Replacement ( oat in-kind) Demolition
Description of Proposed Work: Cabin to be relocated to the museum's west campus as part of a larger interpretive site.
sw rexsed pan kv dealt. --` —
--
Ownere-maif: jmartine@southbendin.gov and/or Contractor e-mail: timlykowski@aol.com
X . and/or X _
�gexturc of Owiir Signature aTContractor __
ar.iphgd,s.pplivnicn I yVee..bide b llIwtln:puu..nI.W. po,ect Pndb Mlun r 11.0 lop D anent Poea,irlppli,ebk
-APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS ARE LISTED ON REVERSE SIDE -
14
APPLICATION FEE
The following schedule of fees shall apply to any Applicationfor a Cenifrcate OfAppmpriraemss:
Routine Maintenance Exclusion (Staff Approval) S 20.00
or
Commission Review S 20.00
Payment must accompany the application at the time of submission. For electronically submitted application, payment
must reach the HPC office within 48 -hours following transmission.
REQUIRED DOCUMENTATION AND SITE PLANS
The Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph County cannot render judgment nor process an
Application without specific documentation. Comprehensive documentation protects both the owner or the property
submitting the Application as well as providing a complete understanding of the project for the commissioners and
staff when rendering a decision. Problems often occur during a project review or during the execution of the project
when one or both parties are unclear as to the specifics. Applications will NOT be processed without aft required fees
and documentation.
When an Application has been scheduled for any meeting where a review and decision are to be rendered, the owner
and any architect or contractor (s) retained for the project most attend such meetings, Failure by the owner, architect,
or contractor to ahend such meetings may result in denial of the Application due to insufficient representation.
Documentation shall include: detailed written description of the project including materials to be used, scale, dimen-
sions, construction methods, finishes, manufacturers' brochures and specifications and photographs of the area(s)
which the project will affect
Photographs may be submitted in digital format, or in photographic print. When a project involves blueprints and/or
site plans, one (I) set shall be submitted with the Application. Any documentation submitted to this office cannot be
returned to the applicant.
INSPECTION AUTHORITY
All projects will be inspected during and following execution, for compliance with the decision (s) rendered by the
Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph County.
Owner acknowledges that while the Historic Preservation Commission only considers Certificates of Appropriateness
for exterior features, under certain circumstances it may be necessary for the Commission Stallto have access to the
interior of the building in order to accurately assess the condition of the exterior feature and that the lack of access to
the interior may prevent the Commission Staff from making a favorable recommendation.
Any work performed on a historic landmark or in an historic district which does not conform to the Certificate of Ap-
propriateness certificate, shall be immediately halted by the Historic Preservation Commission and the Building De-
partment of South Bend and St. Joseph County.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL DISCLOSURE
Certificates Of Appropriateness will be filed with the Building Department of South Bend and St Joseph County when
the applicant also is required to obtain a building permit or other such permit issued by that department. (The appil-
cant may pick up their Certbr(cate at that location). When no building or other permits are required from the Build-
ing Department, the Certificate will be mailed directly to the applicant.
15
TO ENSURE YOUR APPLICATION CAN BE PROCESSED INA TIMELY MATTER WITHOUT DELAY,
PLEASE INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTATION, PER STAFF DISCRETION:
ALL PROJECTS:
_ Certificate of Appropriateness application
_Application fee $20.00
_ Written description (existing condition, evaluation by repair professional)
Overview of project (materials, scale, dimensions, construction methods, alterations, etc.)
_ Photographs (full frontfrom street view, each side effected by project, close up detail of project areas)
_ Specification of material (either manufacture brochure or link to product online)
NEW CONSTRUCTION, ADDITIONS, FENCES, LANDSCAPING:
_ Site Plan drawing* or Aerial View depicting existing property lines, buildings, structures and proposed project locations
ROOFS:
Site Plan drawing* of building only overview showing building footprint and proposed project locations
WINDOWS, SIDING:
_ Elevation drawing' (Existing and proposed new)
_ Evaluation / Quote by repair professional
DEMOLITION (MANDATORY COMMISSION REVIEW):
_ Site Plan drawing' or Aerial View depicting existing property lines, buildings, structures and proposed project locations
_ Structural drawings / Architectural drawings
UPON REQUEST BY STAFF:
Blueprints
Drawings
_ Other
Hand drawn is acceptable
Navarre Cabin
Homestead Project
Supplement to be attached
to Certificate of Appropriateness Application
dated February 3, 2020
Submitted By:
The History Museum
South Bend, Indiana
March 2, 2020
Additional Information on Moving the Navarre Cabin
The History Museum intends to work with the HPC to apply for Local Historic Landmark Status for the
Navarre Cabin at its new site on our campus. Regardless of whether the landmark status application is
successful, we would request that it be made known to the Commissioners that, as a condition of COA
issuance, the Navarre Cabin continue to be covered under the protective oversight of the HPC. We
intend to continue to work closely with the Commission on issues regarding maintenance and upkeep,
and do not intend to make any updates or changes without HPC consultation and approval.
The cabin move is as follows:
1. Jack the cabin up off the stone piers.
2. Disassemble the stone piers.
3. Reassemble piers on new site.
4. Carefully move the cabin to the new site.
5. Slowly move into position and secure to new piers.
6. Clean up Leeper Park site and restore site to satisfaction of VPA and HPC.
The voids left and space underneath the building will be graded and seeded, as well as the burn marks
left from cabin programs and any other related features, with oversight from VPA. In the event that the
grass or other features are inadvertently damaged, The History Museum will include their repair in the
remediation of the site. Our intent is to leave the site a seamless part of the landscape. Tim Lykowski of
Lykowski Movers will be at the March HPC meeting to address any additional concerns or questions
regarding the move.
If VPA or HPC requests a marker to commemorate the site, The History Museum will furnish one to the
specifications requested.
18
Leeper Park East Preliminary Site Plan
Satellite view of
current cabin site.
Drawing of current
cabin site.
Proposed plan after
cabin's relocation.
.1.. all —• -
If ISTORI' OF S'I'. .JOSIMI MUS'ry,
n�. Vidnin live n.•. tluvwuh Soul.h
,,dnlad )fishnwoka; T',Htly I'reol< www;
INAd
F -rr•'t And nc,•nnr. timnpliou
Vidr!sm ,1; Crnllt's i'uinl rand: Ln Porti:
Irntle PuAn{m nvenmr; Ronih Rand ave
wo`, plon"Iaburg rand, olid 3lisbawnha
,At. or The hunting and trnlglinG Grounds
oIro
aM muIll, down the vnllCy of the ICnula kc•e.
fur MnnMmt alis until acitliin n Ynrc
Allot, At hive IMI, the spnrlsmnlr's parn-
rr+n Pre
Pierer ten erre when in his prime ix
lic
.61to Iall'e 8n•n n noble tpe,-iVTwl
°"I
"AAn mhald. fullF sus ta•I. in 116911L. but
an
Iq- Ih9 o -.IuI,.
protea i� of A1. ,�, u.i.,, I,In,•, u I i
Snr0"Im I W,:... Ilisl•u•i J
Ih:, lie..Llo-..innh
coil L: I,., q,� pori:. -a
it i.r eared fnr• Lc Ilry Pity 1, 11,. r, i.
ilv conal vai,•ra Llr. Lial-p tic rvll,, :Aavu•'r,.
Plan. "'lit I" L,:nI';],d it�nu,. i•; .,:gp'Sct
Ih, Gill• nl' lilt Iroinr pY Ihie
41r. wm. Trill p,a•pel r, Ip hl+ :: iru• in rv. 1,:,
mrv: m tri 11 :dsn \'nc:or.. qr, r. hili liver.
link>' Laeper p:oi<. vrhrn• il:,. :nm'6rnt
rlvn er u pr,:y,=:.vr,l. and nv,�rloul:a ligr'.r-ey
hr Purr ur; 1+:.,;he.. voh,.re Il^ rlUrrp,•i>iuL•
Int Uailrr mi. lip hu Irel'au 111,1if lu it'.:
R{HIDESC'E ANB TRADING POST BUILT BY PIERRE NAVARRE, I3 M0, AND NOW PR&
SERVED IN LEEPER PARK, IN THE CITY OR SOUTH REXB.
mlher slenderly built ^ On the removal of
the Pottntcutoulies to the west, in 1840, he
Teat n'ith the tribe, but Afterwards returned
IO thil COmAJ\ W'IV." he died lit the Immo
It hit dnnchn-r ill South Bond. December
T. 16IN Ili. body costa iu Ceder riven
t:naeu•n 1,••,n Soto•Ihnne. 'i'hr log houxe
trill by Simt , ill 182(). which was the (INC
Ill, tmdiue vhttinn in St, .Jlkmpli county. and
thi.l l•io.•er and his livilmelald, half
aWl^ mal lialf ludian. s1, Inng reaidcd, has
�s P" ,,A la this day, It was pcesontml
"tr' R'nrk of South urnu mil Vol,..
r TMe ISr411 Pub. Co., Obtram. INR{.
IL
Howard's County llistyy, page 131
wilderness, nuc nearly one hundred years
ago.
W. TDM FIRST SETTLERS.
Sec: 1: ALEx1R OoQut LARti.—Tho first
American home established within the limits
of St. Joseph county was that of Alaeis
Coqnillard, who is usually regarded as the
founder of the city of South Bend. The
aoutinnity of our history is well preserved in
the life of il'Ir. Coquillurd. While he was a
Yue tinder and of Frcoch descent, as were
mod of his predecessars in the valley of the
SI, Joseph, Mod while he wns always on
t` ` 9r Chad es H. Bmleu-
.VNAVARRE PLACE derives its name from the fact
• : �
that
that in this locality was the home of Pierre Frieschutz
A `I Navarre, the white man whose presence here as long ago as
,, 1,
1820 marks the very beginning of the annals of our city. His
L residence, a substantial and well preserved log house, has sur-
vived to our day and has been given to ,the Northern Indi-
ana Historical Society. A lady who has resided In South
Bend for 77 years, and whose childhood was passed in a home
on a bluff overlooking all this region of Navarre Place, recalls the
scene of those first days. She remembers that when she was a
little girl it was her delight to run to the edge of the bluff in the
morning to see the lodges that had been set up on the fair plain
below; for the Indians were continually coming and going, some-
times large bands of them and sometimes only a family or two.
Bartlett's Navarre Place booklet, page 3. Entire booklet available at
hSIGs://michianamenrnrvsycol.org/dinilnl/coUettinn/g�6827co1131i�/$;5[rec 1
22
we'
arre'
a6in
808 West Washington Street • South Bend, IN 46601 574.235.9664
historymuseumSB.org
Navarre Cabin
Homestead Project
Application Attachment for Certificate of Appropriateness
February 3, 2020
Respectfully Submitted By:
The History Museum
808 W. Washington Street
South Bend, IN 46601
29
FEB 0 3 2020
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RIC*&54457
OF SOUTH BEND AND ST. JOSEPH COUNTY
County---City Building, South Bend, IN 46601
http;//www.soWlibandin.gov/goveminenUdepartmetitteomtnunity-invesbnent
" a Phona:574/235.9371 Fax: 574/235,9021
•W85 Email: hpcsbsjc@southbend[n.gov
A Certilled Local Covemmenl of the Naflonnl Pad<Servlce Elicis Fessel, Historic Preservation
Administrator
APPLICATION FOR A — CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
OFFICE USE ONLY»»»I)9 NOT COMPLETE ANY ENTRIES CONTAINED IN THIS BOX«««OFFICE USE ONLY
Date Received:
Application Number:
Past Reviews: ❑ YES (Date of Last Review)
Staff Approval authorized by:
Historic Preservation Commission Review Date:
❑ Local Landmark
❑ National Landmark
Certnicate Of Appro rlateness:
Denied ❑ Tabled
❑ Local Historic District (Nacre) _
❑ National Register District (Name)
❑ No
Title:
❑ Sent To Committee D Approved and Issued:
Address of Property for proposed work: Pierre Navarre Cabin, Leeper Park, South Bend, IN 46601
(Striae( Nwnber—Streef Nome—Cify—Zip)
Name of Property owner(s); Northern Indlana Hletorlcal Society dAo. The History Museum phoneM 574-235-9664
Address of PropertyOwner(s): 808W
Street, South Bend, IN 46601
Name ofContractor(a): Tim Lykowski _ Phone N:
Contractor Company Name: Lykowski Construction, Inc,
574-291-8858
Address of contractor Company: 23158 West Ireland Road, South Bend, IN 46614
(Str•eel N(mber- 81reet Nanie-01) -Zip)
Current Use of Building: Historic Interpretive site
(Single Famify—Mufti•Family—Conmrercla!—Government—(nAusuial—Vacant—etc.)
Type of Building Conelructlon: Single -pen log cabin
(Wood Frams—Errck--Sfaue-,Steel—Calcrate—Odrer J
Proposed Work: (more than one ❑ Landscape ❑ New ❑ Replacement (rot in-kind) ❑ Demolition
box may be checked)
Description of Proposed Work: Relocation to the museum's west campus, as port of larger Interpretive site. see attachment for details.
Ownere-malt: kericksonr@historymuseumsb.org timlykowski@aol.com
Y,-. Q _ and/or Contractor e-mail;
Sig slurs of Owner
and/or X
Signature of Contractor
ay sieniox this aPplw.li..1 ngrw m.bide bynll 10001 manlations Miami to p, ixi and to abtain a ntlading D"aino l Permit, iragdivublv..
26
APPLICATION FEE
The following schedule of fees shall apply to any Application for a Certificate OJ'Approprimeness:
Routine Maintenance Exclusion (Staff Approval) $ 20.00
or
Commission Review
$ 20,00
Payment must accompany the application at the time of submission, For electronically submitted application, payment
must reach the HPC office within 48 -hours following transmission.
REQUIRED DOCUMENTATION AND SITE PLANS
The Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph County cannot render judgment nor process an
Application without specific documentation, Comprehensive documentation protects both the owner of the property
submitting the Application as well as providing a complete understanding of the project for the commissioners and
staff when rendering a decision. Problems often occur during a project review or during the execution of the project
when one or both parties are unclear as to the specifics. Applications will NOT be processed wdhoal all required fees
and documentation.
When an Application has been scheduled for any meeting where a, review and decision are to be rendered, the owner
and any architect or contractor (s) retained for the project must attend such meetings, Failure by the owner, architect,
OP contractor to ottend Bach meetings may resndt in denial of the Application due to insufficient presentation.
Documentation shall include: detailed written description of the project including materials to be used, scale, dimen-
sions, construction mcthuds, finished, manufacturers' brochures and specifications and photographs of the area (s)
which the project will affect.
Photographs may be submitted in digital format, or in photographic print. When a project involves blueprints and/or
site plans, one (1) set shall be submitted with the Application. Any documentation submitted to this office cannot be
returned to the applicant.
INSPECTION AUTHORITY
All projects will be inspected during and following execution, for compliance with the decision (s) rendered by the
Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph County.
Owner acknowledges that while the Historic Preservation Commission only considers Certificates of Appropriateness
for exterior features, under certain circumstances it may be necessary for the Commission Staff to have access to the
interior of the building in order to accurately assess the condition of the exterior feature and drat the lack of access to
the interior may prevent the Commission Staff from making a favorable recommendation.
Any work performed on a historic landmark or in an historic district which does not conform to the Certificate of Ap-
propriatencss certificate, shall be immediately halted by the Historic Preservation Commission and due Building De-
portment of South Bend and St. Joseph County.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL DISCLOSURE
Certificates Of Appropriateness will be filed with the Building Department of South Bond and St. Joseph County when
the applicant also is required to obtain a building permit or other such permit issued by that department. (The appli-
caut may pick ap their Certlfrcale at that location). When no building or other permits are required from the Build-
ing Department, the Certificate will be mailed directly to the applicant.
27
TO ENSURE YOUR APPLICATION CAN BE PROCESSED IN A TIMELY MATTER WITHOUT DELAY,
PLEASE INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTATION WHEN APPROPRIATE;
[aald Certificate of Appropriateness application
QWritten description of the project (materials to be used, scale, dimensions, construction methods, altera-
tions, etc.)
Materials to be used (Supplemented with manufactures' brochures and specifications)
Site Plan showing existing buildings & structures and proposed project (for new construction, additions,
nnpaths, terraces, patios, fences)
Photographs
Q�
Blueprints/Drawings
Application fee - $20.00
28
Part 1: Navarre History
Pierre Freischutz Navarre was the first man of European descent to settle in St. '
Joseph County. He was an educated man of French ancestry, born in 1787 in
Michigan Territory near Detroit. Navarre came to this area as an agent forJohn
Jacob Astor's American Fur Company. In 1820, he built his cabin and established a
trading post on the northeast bank of the St. Joseph River, with the intent to trade
for furs with the area Native population. He and his wife, a Potawatomi woman
named Angelique Kechoueckouay, lived on the site there with their large family,
gaining title in 1831 to the 62.6 acres surrounding the site. Pierre Navarre and his
family left South Bend in 1835 tojoin other Potawatomi who were forcibly
removed to Kansas, though Angelique passed away shortly after their relocation.
After her death, Navarre returned to the area, working as a farmer and trader, Figure 1: Pierre Navorre
selling goods along the Kankakee River. Pierre Navarre passed away in 1864 and Is buried in Cedar Grove
Cemetery at the University of Notre Dame.
The original location of Navarre's cabin is recognized today as 123 West North Shore Drive, on the north
bank of the St. Joseph River. Navarre sited his cabin for easy access to the river, the primary means of
transportation for trappers and traders before established roads. His associated homestead extended
from the river's edge north to what today is Marquette Avenue. Navarre was recorded as living in the
cabin by Father Sorin during an 1850 parish census. Following his death in 1864, Navarre's land became
the property of Samuel Leeper. The builders of Navarre Place (today's magnificent homes along North
Shore Drive) purchased the Navarre property from Leeper's heirs for residential development. In
recognition of its historical significance, the developers donated the Navarre Cabin to the Northern
Indiana Historical Society in May of 1895. The Society's original unrealized intent was to relocate the
building to Howard Park; in 1901, the South Bend Board of Public Works agreed to allow the cabin to be
moved to a location on the west side of the river. The cabin was moved in 1904 by Alexander Staples and
his firm, White & Staples, to a site noted as Bartlett/Marion Streets.
Around this time, Leeper Park's design was being developed by Herman H. Beyer, Park Superintendent. In
1911, noted landscape architect George Edward Kessler was hired to develop a master plan for the park.
As the city expanded, the North Pumping Station required expansion as well. It was enlarged in 1912, and
Wellhouse #2 added in 1915. In 1916, the Navarre Cabin was once again relocated to a site next to the
north/northwest end of the reservoir to make way for further development. In 1918, a (historically
inaccurate) brick chimney and fireplace were added as part of its remodeling. The cabin was used by the
local Boy Scouts as their meeting place from 1925 until World War II. The cabin was once again moved in
1954 to its current location to create distance from the reservoir, against which it previously abutted.
Another inappropriate chimney and fireplace, this time of stone, were added along with landscaped
paths.
In 2000, the cabin had deteriorated to the extent that its survival was in doubt, and it was described as an
eyesore in the park. The NIHS partnered with the Historic Preservation Commission, and with the
assistance of the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Memorial Hospital (now Memorial Hospital of
South Bend/Beacon Health), and other local foundations, $150,000 was raised to hire the Leatherwood
Company, the nation's leading log cabin restoration company, to evaluate and restore the cabin. The
company meticulously documented, disassembled, and reconstructed the cabin on stone piers as it would
have been in the 1820s. Today, the cabin is used as an interpretive site on a limited basis due to the
remote location and logistical issues such as lack of storage for demonstration materials, firewood, etc.
29
y: {
�A•
Figure 3. Tinted photograph, believed to be detweer 1905 and 1910.
30
Figure 4: The cabin in its third location, abutting the reservoir, believed to be 1920s. Note the historically Inaccurate
additions and brick chimney.
Figure 5: Aerial photograph of Leeper Pork, 1920s. Cabin is highlighted in inset photo. Note the
historically inaccurate additions and brick chimney,
31
r
�
mY
Figure Z The cabin, post -1986.
Note the odd4ion of
32
ti•
�:
i�"�, ,
�:�� ^.
�'�::. ,.
�" S .
f
.., - i
_. - --
A,. •' �
.
i 1ik e
,,.
...,�
9
A
t-)
'lt 04.wo1M u 100
34
Part 2: Proposed Homestead Plan
Background
In 2010, owing to concerns about security in Lee per Park East and a desire to increase its utilization by
bringing the cabin closer to the museum campus, the Society began, through purchase and donation,
acquiring derelict and abandoned properties on the west side of its campus (South Laurel Street). By
2019, all properties needed forthe campus expansion had been secured. Over $250,000 has been raised
to fund the property development needed to create a site for the cabin. Due to his experience in moving
houses, buildings, and historic structures, Tim Lykowski at Lykowski Construction, Inc., has been
engaged to confirm the feasibility and cost of moving the cabin from Leeper Park to the museum
campus. Property surveys have been completed, and in 2018, the landscape architecture firm of Lehman
& Lehman was engaged to develop and advise on a site plan. In 2019, The History Museum was awarded
a grant in the amount of $25,000 from Visit South Bend/Mishawaka to support moving the structure in
2020.
Benefits
The History Museum is seeking a Certificate of Appropriateness to move the historic Navarre Cabin from
its present location in Leeper Park East to an experiential pioneer homestead on the museum campus.
The goals of this project Include:
1. Improved interpretation
The new site of the cabin will provide a much more historically accurate context with
mature vegetation, outbuildings, and other features, improving the breadth of a visitor's
educational experience. Utilizing first -person interpreters and informational signage
about the complex, the homestead area will provide flexibility for programming that will
not only teach guests about Pierre Navarre and his home, but lifeways of early pioneer
settlers. Open spaces will provide opportunities to build seasonal Native structures and
learn about the area's first peoples as well as a place for demonstrations such as
pioneer games, crafts, and foodways. A visual barrier, as well as landscaped properties
west of Laurel Street already owned by the Society, will block views of surrounding
structures, completing the illusion of traveling back in time to Navarre's homestead.
2. Maximized visitor exposure
The Navarre Cabin's remote location in Leeper Park means that it can be used only
infrequently for historical programming. Once located on the museum campus, the
homestead will be included as an integral part of The History Museum's existing daily
operations, dramatically broadening the audience served by the cabin and its
surroundings. In 2019, the cabin saw 670 visitors— on its new site the cabin will be
included with each of The History Museum's 45,000 annual visitor experiences. The site
will be designed to be Inclusive and accessible to people of all ages, backgrounds, and
abilities. The associated green space allows for broad public programming, from tours of
a few guests to large festivals.
3. Increased security
In the last two decades, the Society's Board of Directors has expressed increasing
concern for the safety of the Navarre Cabin. The structure has been vandalized and
forcibly entered several times, necessitating the installation of heavy shutters along with
35
fire and security alarms. There are concerns that neither the city nor park police are
equipped to provide adequate surveillance to protect the cabin, with many alarms not
responded to given its remote location. The planned Navarre Homestead will be
physically secured at night, with security camera and floodlight coverage. The location
adjacent to the museum will have the added benefit of increased maintenance oversight
and attention.
The Society's Board of Directors resolved to move the cabin to the west campus in 2020, committing to
the project and resolving that the September 24, 2020 Annual Dinner will celebrate the 200" birthday of
the Pierre Navarre Cabin, and its new home. The Development Committee of the Board of Trustees has
set fundraising to complete the Navarre Homestead project as its top priority and, once it has
confirmation that the project is approved, will begin the campaign.
Navarre Cabin Interpretive Site Budget
Homestead Budget
Vendor
Estimate Low
Estimate High
Relocation expense
Lykowski Construction
26,750
30,000
Initial Landscape plan
Lehman & Lehman
6,000
6,250
Site Survey
Lang, Feeney & Associates
2,870
2,870
Biddable landscape plan
Lehman & Lehman
15,000
20,000
Demolition of 2 structures
bid in hand
24,000
25,000
Other Site work
TBD
10,000
12,500
Utility work
TBD
5,000
7,500
Homestead Interpretive plan
TBD
15,000
15,000
Outbuildings and equipment
TBD
15,000
20,000
Fencing and security system
TBD
10,000
15,000
Interpretive signage
TBD
7,500
10,000
Total hard costs
137,120
164,120
36
37
38
23158 West Ireland Road Lykowski Construction, Inc.
South Ban tl,friQiana 46614 _ 'Tile hest mall¢ Vl, mernmdd'
Moving, shoring and raising 1000 ton capabilHy Bonded S Insured Telephone (574) 291-8858
Email tigdvkowsxUiaasl.ran,
April 8, 2018
Mr. Jon Cook
Oliver Corporation
Re: Relocation of the Pierre Navarre Cabin at Leeper Park, South Bend, IN
Dear Jon:
The following is a cost summary for relocating the Pierre Navarre Cabin at Leeper Park to the
Oliver/Studebaker National Museum Complex, South Bend, IN. Lykowski Construction, Inc. (herein
LCI)
proposes to supply the necessary equipment, labor, moving permit and insuranceto safely support,
move
and set the cabin on an appropriate foundation constructed by others.
1. Insurance -$5,000,000 increased liability limits, City of South Bend requires for
moving permits, budget - $
2,500.00
2. Moving cost, Leeper Park to the Oliver/Studebaker Complex site, LCI quotes -
11,000.00
3. Overhead utility wire lifting/removal by others, budget -
3,000.00
4. Swing (1) traffic signal at S/W corner of LaSalle and Williams St. by others, budget -
1,500.00
5. Excavation by others for:
A. (9) 36"x36"x36" below grade foundations, budget -
500.00
B. Backfill foundations after placement, budget -
250.00
6. Placement of (9) concrete 36"x36"x36" foundations by others, budget-
2,700.00
7. Relay reclaimed stone from Leeper Park site tuck point tight to the bottom of the
cabin by others, budget-
5,300.00
S. Entry,approaches,steps— handicap accessible, budget cost - non -offered at this time.
Lykowski Construction, Inc_ carries $1,000,000.00 in general liability insurance and all employees are
covered with workers' compensation. Lykowski has a floater (cargo) policy to cover the building for
damages up to $100,000.00 with a $1,500.00 deductible. Insurance limits can be increased to meet your
needs for additional costs. All Insurance is house and building moving insurance that covers all shoring,
raising, and moving operations and is included in our cost. Certificates of insurance are available upon
request.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me anytime.
Best re ds,
Ti othy Lyk4 President
Lykowski Construction, Inc.
Visit us at www.lykowskiconstrtiction.com
39
Figure 13: View of future site facing northwest, at
intersection oflefferson Boulevard alley and
museum parking lot.
Figure 14: View of future sitefocing north, at
Jefferson Boulevard alley.
Figure 15: View offuture sitefocing northeast, of
the intersection of Laurel Street and Jefferson
Boulevord alley.
40
Figure 16: View of future site facing southeast, at the
corner of Laurel Street and the drive to The History
Museum's maintenance garage. The two houses
pictured here, at 118/130 and 131 Laurel Street, ore
owned by the NIHS and slated for demolition In
summer 2020.
Figure 17: View of future site facing south, from the
driveway leading to The History Museum's
maintenance garage.
Figure 18: View offuture site facing southwest, from
the intersection of the driveway leading to The History
Museum's maintenance garage and the museum's
west parking lot.
41
Figure 19: Current location of the Navarre Cabin,
facing southwest. Note the views of the reservoir,
busy intersection, and Memorial Hospital In the
background, creating an anachronistic context for
the cabin.
Figure 20: Current location of the Navarre Cabin,
facing southeast.
Figure 21: Current location of Navarre Cabin, facing
northwest. Visible In the background Is the 1912
Classical Revival North Pumping Station and
parking lot creating an anachronistic contextfor
the cabin.
42
Figure 22: Current location of Navarre Cabin, facing
west. In the foreground is a herb garden of dubious
historical accuracy.
23. The stone footings supporting the cabin
documented, dismontied, andreconstructed
rewsite.
Figure 24: An example of recent gmfflti on the
exterior walls of the cabin. its new location on the
museum campus will provide increased security and
prevent vandalism.
43
34)yeph Rivet
a
Nw
t
"I
r
e*
♦ P� � 4 � A
Part 3: Additional Comments
The Northern Indiana Historical Society (NIRS) came into possession of the cabin in 1895, and
committed In perpetuity to its preservation, recognizing its historical importance and value to the
community. However, over the years, the cabin's frequent relocations have been more oriented toward
moving it out of the way to accommodate the needs of the Pumping Station, not improving
interpretation. After its last move, well-intentioned efforts to periodically develop ornamental beds
around the cabin provided aesthetics that were not likely present during Navarre's time. A review of the
Leeper Park Timeline (Talley, 1996) meticulously accounts for park budgeted funding to support the
former zoo and zoo staff, with no entries showing any allocations of funds for the cabin or its site, which
could be read to indicate that the city did not consider the cabin a part of the park or operations. The
cabin also does not feature or was even Indicated in the 1915 Kessler plan for Leeper Park, indicating it
was not considered an Important part of the landscape. After the Boy Scouts discontinued its use as a
meeting place, there is no indication that anything was done to care for or preserve the cabin. Mature
trees were removed, further eliminating the desired natural context. We recognize the NIHS could have
done a better job to preserve the cabin in the 201" century. By the early 2000s the structure had
deteriorated to the point of serious disrepair. The efforts and results of the cabin reconstruction project
shows the Society's renewed commitment to preserving this important piece of local history,
The Historic Navarre Cabin is a powerful teaching tool. But its current location in Leeper Park makes
using it to its fullest potential very challenging. We seethe cabin as an asset to be used year-round. Daily
tours will benefit from trained docents who can provide interesting facts and answer questions. Classes
will be scheduled for area school groups with our educator and volunteers serving as interpreters. To
provide for family learning opportunities, weekend operations are planned. Combined with new public
programs, the Navarre Homestead will become a bona fide tourism destination, its potential recognized
by the grant received from Visit South Bend/Mishawaka last year.
We understand there may be concern about removing the cabin from its site of the last 60+ years. Many
local residents have fond memories of attending Cabin Days in the park. At the new site, Cabin Days will
continue as a dedicated school program, with the benefit of more complete interpretation and
additional dates due to its new context. In 1988, the Common Council of the City of South Bend
resolution 1602-88 designated the Navarre Cabin an honorary local historic landmark. The resolution
lists many deserving characteristics of the cabin, including Navarre's legacy and the historic nature of
the cabin. However, it does not list the cabin's location as contributing to the designation. In 1996, the
Council passed ordinance 8735-96 declaring Leeper Park a historic landmark, a designation that is well-
deserved. The ordinance includes criteria for landscape status from the Historic Preservation
Commission. Though the cabin is mentioned in the description of the site as a local landmark, it is not
mentioned as contributing to these criteria. What is mentioned is the park as an example of early 20"
century suburban park planning as part of the City Beautiful movement, notably under George Kessler's
master plan —of which the Navarre Cabin is not a part.
45
The current location of the cabin does not improve its educational potential. The 1912 North Pumping
Station and parking lot dominate the view, with Memorial Hospital and the busy traffic of Michigan
Street prominent on the site, with the cabin seemingly nut of plain amnng the turn of the century
structures. Not only would its relocation to a historic context improve Its potential, but it would unify
the vistas of Leeper Park East in the turn -of -the -century style intended by Beyer and Kessler.
Today, the rehabilitation of Leeper Park East is prominent in the future plans of Venues, Parks, and Arts,
and the relocation of the cabin will make it possible for Leeper Park East to be restored to its landscape
environs as originally planned. We believe that It is time forthe Navarre Cabin to finally be moved with
intent and forethought and find a forever home that realizes its educational potential in an appropriate
historic context.
Children enjoy the Cabin Days at the Navarre Cabin. At the new site, programs like
Cabin Days will be held more often, making scheduling easierfor schools and
maximizing attendance.
46
ETH BF <t.RT uL
r
" CITY OF SOUTH BEND ^j
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
The MONDAY, APRIL 20, 2020 meeting of the
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION of SOUTH BEND and St.
JOSEPH COUNTY
has been CANCELED.
The next meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission will be
Monday, May 18, 2020
COUNTY—CITY BUILDING 13T" FLOOR ROOM 1308 at 5:30 PM
Telephone interpreter service is available upon request free of charge for individuals with limited English
proficiency. Auxiliary aid or other services are available upon request free of charge.
Please eive reasonable advance request when possible.
MICNF.LF. GELFMAN P. CERTIFi FD LOCAL GOVFRnMEST ELICIA FEASEL
PRESIDENT OF TNF NATIONAL PARA SERVICE HLSTC'R['_ PRESERVATION ADMINISTRATOR
EXCELLENCE ACCOUNTABILITY I INNOVATION i INCLUSION EMPOWERMENT
1400SCounty-City Building 227W. Jefferson Blvd.: South Bend. Indiana 46601 p574.235,9371 1`574,235.9201.southbendin.gov
Y 4KI
s.,y' CITY OF SOUTH BEND �:�xj
(;'. °:
AHISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
The MONDAY, May 18, 2020 meeting of the
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION of SOUTH BEND and St.
JOSEPH COUNTY
has been CANCELED.
The next meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission will be
Monday, June 15, 2020
COUNTY—CITY BUILDING 13TH FLOOR ROOM 1308 at 5:30 PM
Telephone interpreter service is available upon request free of charge for individuals with limited English
proficiency. Auxiliary aid or other services are available upon request free of charge.
Please Give reasonable advance recuest when possible.
MICHELE. CELFNAN A CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELrCLA FE.ASEL.
PRFSLDENT OF TRE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE HTSTOEIC PRESERVATION ADMIN-STRATOR
EXCELLENCE ACCOUNTABILITY' INNOVATION i INCLUSION i EMPOWERMENT
1400SCounty-City Building 227W.Jeffcrson Blvd South Bond. Indiana46601 p574.235.9371 (574.235.9201 scuthbendin.gov,
TIi g :AS^vF.Ns.QF:
7
f" `� CITY OF SOUTH BEND
�
r� HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MEETING AGENDA —MONDAY, JUNE 15, 2020-6:30 PM
COUNTY —CITY BUILDING, ATM FLOOR, COUNCIL CHAMBERS
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
III. PUBLIC HEARING
a. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS—FROM CANCELED MARCH MEETING
2030 A224 Ii1FI4 7859 1
71IR Mi! Lagn.,p
GFCIiA2APP No. 89i
WITHDRAWN BY APPLICANT
ii. 2020-0224A
617-619 Cushing
Local Landmark Ordinance No. 8142-90
iii. 2020-0302
907 Riverside
Local Landmark Ordinance No. 8734-96; National
Register of Historic Places Leeper Park
b. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS —FROM CANCELED APRIL MEETING
i. 2020-313A
705-707 Lincoln Way East Edgewater Ordinance No. 6846-80
ii. 2020-0402
1614 East Wayne
East Wayne Street Ordinance No. 7796-87
iii. 2020-0403
1515 East Wayne
East Wayne Street Ordinance No. 7796-87
iv. 2020-0406
729 Cottage Grove
Local Landmark Ordinance No. 8055-90
c. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS— FROM CANCELED MAY MEETING
d. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS—JUNE MEETING
IV. PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR
V. REGULAR BUSINESS
a. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
I. January 21, 2020
ii. February 17, 2020
b. STAFF REPORTS
I. Administrative Approvals
c. COMMITTEE REPORTS
I. Disposition of Historic Preservation Assets
ii. Standards Update
VI. OLD BUSINESS
VII. NEW BU51NESS
VIII. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS
IX. ADJOURNMENT
Telephone interpreter service is available upon request free of charge for individuals with limited English
proficiency. Auxiliary aid or other services are available upon request free of charge.
Please Five reasonable advance request when possible.
N1fCKELE CiUMM A C7KTTF:ED LiCAL G VFR1IMFNT Err,'A EETSFF,
PRFSICENT Uk THF NAUVZAL PARK SERVICE HTSTOdiC PRFSEHVAMN A9yTNTSTR1NT01
EXCELLENCE ACCOUNTABILITY i INNOVATION INCLUSION ; EMPOWERMENT
14005 County -City Building 227 W, Jefferson Blvd. South Bend, Indiana 46601 p574.235,9371 f574.235.9201 southbendin.gov
MINUTES 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
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 take, 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 I -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 stmemre 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 oJfNonh crest back entry door. Seal and replace with "vodsiding. Change vinyl kiechen
window abom the sink. take off back entry door and replace by sliding patio door and build a wood deck 10'x 8' widr stairs
towards the backyard. Fix basement latch exterior entry door, make it frmetional and safe for use. "
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT: Applicant seeks a Certificate of Appropriateness for changes on the structure
4-. Remove exterior entrance door at northwest comer of house. Side over with wood siding to match the existing
reveal and dimensions.
2, 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.
3 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 #1 Thick Deck Board.
3: Reconstruct existing basement access hatch.
Late 19'h century structures often had multiple front entrances (leading to some being labeled as `coffin doors' er'f nieral doors'
as they were supposedly installed to allow coffins to be brought into and removed from a house without navigating tight turns or
comers). Historic record indicates this structure has long existed as a multi -family house with multiple units, necessitating
multiple entrances. This is retlected 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 facade, one on the rear primary fapade, and one at the northwest comer of the of the rear fapade). 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
mar £made. 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 ma 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 -rooting, 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 apart 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.
e. wand—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 arc 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 facade, 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/1897/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 118734-96 and National Register of Historic
Places, 6/15/2000
Rating; Omrstanding
DESCRIPTION OF STRucruRE/ 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. I "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.112 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 em 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 Lwper Park development for the next decade, documentary evidence appears that only some elements of the
Kessler design were actually installed.' 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
L%*9L P+rk Cuhurd ml. - • R •ran, prepared by Westerly Group for the Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph
County,
May 1998.
2 [bid.
[bid.
° 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/sIide, 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 I. 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 II (dnlltng 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 bmsh 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 formerly 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 (I 14-032b). 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: I on each side of the 3 bump outs along the walk, I close to Lafayette
and I close to the northwest comer 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 m the museum's nest carpus as part of a larger interpretive site. See
attached plan for derails. "
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT: The Northern Indiana Historical Society (NIHS, also known as The Histmy
Museums) 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.
It. 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 bum pits,
iii. The removal /grading of the small sections of stonewall,
iv. The removal/ fitting 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' 84' 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. Asa 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 m -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 tern.
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.
S. 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.
I. 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 islands)
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 organisational 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.
11. 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.
I. 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, eta.)
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. (fusing 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 pan 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.
1 I . 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 mot 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,'frials, 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.
I. 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 Stree4 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.
11. 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
vehicular put king which ate trot pati 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.
I. 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.
IL 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, Ums, etc.)
Refer to Sections 9.11 B, C and D regarding treatment of materials and features; and Sections 92, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, 9.6, 9.8, 9.9 and
9.10 for additional Standards and Criteria that may apply.
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.
on. 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 W PA walls and Sloughs(s) in the eastern section of the park and the adjoining St. Joseph River.
p. All Park Benches.
q. All Manhole Covers, Sewer Covers and Grates, and all Electrical Underground Vault and/or Raceway
Covers.
r. The north; south alleyway east of Michigan Street, running north from Bartlett Street which used to run
between Lot 'A' and Lots 13, 14, 15. 16, 17, 18, 19 and part of 20 of the Rockstroh Addition,
s. All Plaques, Monuments, Sculptures, Memorials, Planters, Ums, 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 accessary, 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.
S. 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.
H. Existing non -conforming signs should be removed.
12. All new monuments and fountains shall be placed so that they conform to and with the ongmal histone 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.
I. 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, forth, 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.
I. 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 9.9 for
additional Standards and Criteria that may apply.
I. A threa-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. !ester 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.
I. Removal of the speakers atop Pump House Number 3 is encouraged.
B. Masonry (Brick, Stone, Tema Cotta, Concrete, Stucco, and Mortar)
I. [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 prefile
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 carried out well in advance of
cleaning (including exposure to all seasons if possible.)
14. Sandblasting (wet or dry), wire brushing, or similar abrasive cleaning methods shall not be permitted. Doing so
changes the visual quality of the material and accelerates deterioration.
15. Waterproofing or water 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
I. [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)
I. 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 necessury
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. [fusing 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 aherspanal and visual relationships in the
landscape shall nor be allowed.' and 9.7.1.1 ("All items listed herein shall be preserved: (...J The Log Cabin known as the
Navarre House. and rhe footings of the cabinAoase 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 theyjust 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 11 m 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 l' 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 tom, 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 Navane 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 Navane 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 Navane 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
undemtilized 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 team 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 -Hams -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
comer 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, Melonie 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 teaming 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-1Crostenko (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 20 17-
1101 B —an application to retroactively replace six original windows with vinyl replacement windows was denied. COA #1989-
01 I8 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.
"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 sometime. 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:
N/A
Commissioner Andrews stated she would support the railing looking more like the photographic
evidence from 1985.
Commissioner Downs-Krosteako 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 STRUCTURE( 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 /umg aluminum windows (and storm windows) that are not original to
rhe !rouse with 7 Sunrise (manufacturer) double hung vinyl windows with fill screens. The top sash of the ran windows facing
the street 011 be colonial -style simulated divided light with gritis on both the exterior and the interior in order to match the style
oftire original wiudots on the top floor, (The bottonn floor of the original house has divided light French doors.) The window
fharnes will be white in color im 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
If. 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 linmis.
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 amused they should be painted, anodized or coated to match the existing. When awnings amused 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 Gellman 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 le replace the roof in a couple ul yeal s, 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 -liter, 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 — U. 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 mof 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, COAk2006-1 113 documents the replacement of g south facing
windows a one east second floor window with Crestline's Crestfit Vinyl Clad wood pocket replacement windows 6/I. COA
2009-0531A allowed for the replacement of 12 windows on the 1030 addition and two bathroom windows with custom
Cresdine Cresttit Vinyl Clad wood pocket replacement windows.
APPLICATION ITEMS: ""Fencing. (brstallazimr ofblack clmin lurk 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 l I' 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 W 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), 1102 East Wayne Street ('historic'
wrought iron fence atop a masonry embankment wall) and 304 Twyckenham Drive (two mit 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 cut back and allowed to rejuvenate. Dead and
deceased material should be selectively removed. Trees and major landscaping elements that must be removed for one mason or
another should be immediately replaced by suitable flare. 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; he waver, 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 oft 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
thomughfare.
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 comer 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 Gellman (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 convening 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 done 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 / I original wood double hung.
There is a Palladian window in front downer. 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 2005-03296
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 fmmed siorm windows with double pane high a iciency windows (Pella); replace
exterior door w/cracked glass and lead paint with security door. Replacements made to increase safety and energy qjriciency.
Trim new windows in same color as original existing structure (pre -renovation). Use original siding to covergaps. Paint wood
in window cavities to match eristing point scheme. Paint security door to match original. "
F PROPOSED PROJECT: The applicant has requested retroactive approval to
I. Replace four metal windows on the rear fapade of rear porch with two vinyl windows.
2. Replace three metal windows on the side fapade of rear porch with one vinyl window,
3. Install a mar 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 he 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 tamed through in the additions. Care should be taken not to change or alter the following:
1. Structur—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)
I. 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 fiorn 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 am 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 stone 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 Sanbom, but it is in the 1945 Sanborn map.
Commissioner Gelfman stated that this house is rated Outstanding and the long -tern 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 Gelfman 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 remediation, but they may not be
perfect, but little people grow so you can work around it.
Commissioner Down-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 Gelfman 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 Gellman 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 H 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 Gelfman complimented Lang 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 COVE) 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 -« 2�0
Sarah Andrew—K79ecretary Date
RID V3ID
i
(t)HISTORIC
ft/
CITY OF SOUTHBENDPRESERVATION COMMISSION
The History Museum
808 West Washington Street
South Bend, IN 46601
Dear Mr. Harding, Ms. Erickson, et al --
June 16, 2020
Flied in Clerk's Office
r— –
JUL d 7 2020
DAWI M ZMEV
FY CLERK, S6u1'H BEND, IN
The Commissioners, at the regularly scheduled monthly Historic Preservation Commission meeting on June
15, 2020 denied approval of Certificate of Appropriateness application #2020-0302, which included the
following application items:
"Cabin to be relocated to the museum's west campus as part of a larger interpretive site. See
attached plan for details.
In making its determination, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the appropriateness of the
proposed construction, reconstruction, or alteration to the preservation of the historic
landmark, specifically, and/or the Historic Preservation District, generally; the detriment to the public
welfare if the proposed construction, reconstruction, or alteration were permitted even though it is not
deemed appropriate; and the potential hardship that the denial of a certificate of appropriateness would
cause the applicant.
Following is the record from the meeting concerning your project stating why your application was denied:
Commissioner Deegan made a motion to deny COA#2020-0302. Seconded by
Commissioner Ponder.
Four in favor, two opposed.
Vote: 4 – 2. Motion to deny COA #2020-0302 is passed.
Commission President Gelfman clarified that, in motions for denial, Commissioners are
required to state their reasons for denial. Roll was called.
MICHELE GELFMAN A CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT FLICIA FEASEL
PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ADMINISTRATOR
EXCELLENCE ACCOUNTABILITY INNOVATION INCLUSION EMPOWERMFNT
1400SCounty-CityBuilding 227\N. Jefferson Blvd. South Bend, Indiana 46601 p574.235.9371 f574,235.9201 southbendin.gov
CITYOFSOUTHBEND HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
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 Ponder (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.
Pursuant to South Bend Municipal Code Section 21-13-02(e)(5)(B), an applicant may appeal a denial of a
Certificate of Appropriateness by the Historic Preservation Commission to the Common Council, which shall
make a final determination of the application.
The. Historic Preservation Commission remains committed to preserving the built environment of the City of
South Bend and unincorporated St. Joseph County.
Please contact this office for assistance, questions, or concerns.
Sincerely,
4
Elicia Feasel
Historic Preservation Administrator
efeasel southbendin.aov
CC Aaron Perd, Venues Parks and Art
Chuck Bulot, Building Department, City of South Bend
Tim Lykowski
Page 12
Adam Toering
Historic Preservation Specialist
atoerina a southbendin.aov
BEFORE THE COMMON COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND
NORTHERN INDIANA HISTORICAL
SOCIETY, INC. D/B/A THE HISTORY
MUSEUM
Petitioner/Appellant,
VA
a7.7M, 2 rem
SOUTH BEND HISTORIC PRESERVATION
COMMISSION
Respondent/Appellee.
r..,._� — _
AUQ t 6 NO
cmc
111
Filed in Clerk's Office
AUG 2 B 2020
DAWN M. JONES
CITY CLERK, SOUTH BEND, IN
POSITION STATEMENT
RELATED TO DENIAL OF CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS NO. 2020-0302
I. BACKGROUND AND RECORD.
Petitioner/Appellant NORTHERN INDIANA HISTORICAL SOCIETY, INC. D/B/A THE HISTORY
MUSEUM (the "Museum"), by counsel, pursuant to INDIANA CODE §§ 36-7-11-4 and 36-7-4-1, et
seq., and, as applicable, Section 21-12.04 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of South Bend,
Indiana (the "Zoning Ordinance"), states that denial of Museum's Certificate of Appropriateness
Petition No. 2020-0302 (the "Petition") by Respondent/Appellee SOUTH BEND HISTORIC
PRESERVATION COMMISSION ( "HPC") at the June 16, 2020 HPC meeting was not supported by
the facts and applicable law. A true and accurate copy of the Certification of Record is attached
as Exhibit 1. The Museum timely filed its Notice of Appeal on July 7, 2020 (the "Notice of
Appeal"). A true and accurate copy of the Notice of Appeal is attached as Exhibit 2. For these
reasons and as shown more fully below, the Museum respectfully asks the Common Council to
reverse the decision of the HPC and approve the Museum's Petition.
-I-
11. INTRODUCTION.
The original location of the Pierre Navarre Cabin (the "Cabin") is recognized today as 123
West North Shore Drive, on the north bank of the St. Joseph River. Navarre sited the Cabin for
easy access to the river, the primary means of transportation for trappers and traders before
established roads. His associated homestead extended from the river's edge north to what today is
Marquette Avenue. Following his death in 1864, Navarre's land became the property of Samuel
Leeper. The builders of Navarre Place purchased the Navarre property from Leeper's heirs for
residential development. In recognition of its historical significance, the developers donated the
Cabin to the Museum in May of 1895.
The Cabin was moved in 1904 by Alexander Staples and his firm, White & Staples, to a
site noted as Bartlett/Marion Streets. As the City of South Bend expanded, the North Pumping
Station required expansion as well. It was enlarged in 1912, and well house #2 was added in 1915.
In 1916, the Cabin was once again relocated to a site next to the north/northwest end of the
reservoir to make way for further development. The Cabin was again moved in 1954 to its current
location to create distance from the reservoir, against which it previously abutted.
In 2000, the Museum embarked on a campaign to restore the Cabin. With the assistance
of the Indiana Department of Natural Resources (the "DNR") and local foundations, over $150,000
was raised to hire the Leatherwood Company, the nation's leading log cabin restoration company,
to evaluate and restore the Cabin, which was completed in 2005. Today, the Cabin is used as an
interpretive site on a limited basis (only three to four days a year) due to the remote location and
logistical issues, such as lack of storage for demonstration materials, firewood, permanent
restrooms, etc.
-2-
Over ten years ago, the Museum formed a Campus Planning Committee to develop a plan
to move the Cabin near the Museum so it can be used much more extensively in programming
with school children and included in tours. During this period, the Museum acquired eight
properties near the west side of the Museum (with donations specified for this purpose) to develop
a site which will be much more conductive to teaching school children about early life in St. Joseph
County. The Museum's plan was to move the Cabin in August of this year and fundraise around
the newly relocated Cabin and related educational opportunities.
Delays ensued related to the approval process and pandemic. Ultimately, the Museum
submitted its proposal at the June 15, 2020 HPC meeting along with favorable recommendations
letters from South Bend's Venues Parks & Arts ("VPA"), the South Bend Schools Superintendent,
Todd Cummings, and PHM Superintendent, Jerry Thacker. Before any public input was heard,
the HPC basically made its decision and the vote was 4-2 to deny the Petition. With the Cabin in
Leeper Park, the Museum's "Cabin Days" for school children is shared with helicopters landing
at the hospital, the water reservoir, the Pumping Station Building, and much traffic noise. HPC
refers to this Leeper Part site as "idyllic'; the Museum respectfully disagrees.
The Museum has a newly expanded "west" campus it intends to develop for the benefit of
the community and its school children and citizens. The Cabin is an important landmark and needs
to be preserved. However, the Museum has little use for, or ability to maintain, the Cabin if it
cannot move the Cabin on campus. The Museum has owned the Cabin for over 125 years and the
Cabin has been moved three times previously because "it was in the way". Now, the Museum has
a long-term plan to move the Cabin for the Cabin's benefit. The Museum respectfully requests
that the Common Council reverse the HPC's denial of the Petition and allow the Museum to
effectively utilize the Cabin in the community's best interest.
-3-
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW.
The denial by HPC of the Museum's Petition at the June 15, 2020 HPC meeting and
underlying conclusions and factual determinations are:
(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with
law;
(2) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity;
(3) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory
right;
(4) without observance of procedure required by law; and/or
(5) unsupported by substantial evidence.
In support, the Museum states:
IV. FACTS, ARGUMENTS AND CONTENTIONS
A. Preservation.
As a basis for denial of the Petition, HPC indicated that it would like to see more in terms
of proposed future funding for maintenance as a way for making up for the potential loss in historic
tax credit resources. After it is moved, the Cabin will lose its status on the National Register of
Historic Places, as well as HPC oversight as a Local Historic Landmark. However, the Museum
intends to (1) apply for Local Historic Landmark status to continue the protective oversight of the
HPC and work closely with HPC on issues regarding maintenance and upkeep, and (2) reapply for
National Register status for the Cabin on its own merits, instead of as a part of Leeper Park.
Even so, the Museum has only asked for federal grant money once, when a DNR grant
provided a portion of the restoration costs for the Cabin. This restoration was an exceptional case,
which the Museum does not expect to have to undertake again, and the funds received provided
10
only a fraction of the total project costs, with the remainder raised by the Museum. The Museum
has a long history of raising money for operations and capital projects, and the substantially lower
cost of regular Cabin maintenance is well within this ability.
Further, the Cabin has suffered through its history from break-ins, storm damage, fire,
graffiti, and other damage, all at its current location. The park is poorly monitored and has a history
of historic structures being destroyed by arson. The caretaking of the Cabin will be far superior
on campus, where the Cabin can be much more easily observed by Museum staff.
B. Education and Accessibility.
As another basis for denying the Petition, HPC stated that it "betrays the educational
mission... of the location." However, a structure like the Cabin is preserved so that future
generations can learn about the lifeways of their ancestors. At its current site, the view is dominated
by the anachronistic 1912 North Pumping Station, the highway, hospital, parking lot, and water
reservoir. Its new site will provide visual barriers to create an immersive experience, taking visitors
back in time to the early 1820s. Currently, restrictions from VPA and HPC severely limit the
number and types of activities that can be offered; on the proposed new site, the Museum can add
appropriate, widely expanded programming for students and the public. This can take place daily,
as opposed to its current location, where the restrictions, as well as the distance from the Museum
campus, severely limit the number and types of activities that can be offered. Appropriate
outbuildings, which are a part of the Museum's plan, and daily interpretation not only teach about
Navarre's home, but include a wider context such as the area's native inhabitants.
Not only will interpretation be vastly improved on the Museum campus, but accessibility
will be as well. The tens of thousands who visit the Museum annually will be able to easily include
a visit to the Cabin, if it is onsite. Also, due to limited field trips allowed to most schools, one bus
-5-
ride to the Museum campus could encompass visits to the Museum, Oliver Mansion, Cabin, and
the Studebaker National Museum; whereas, currently, a field trip to the Cabin in Leeper Park East
almost always precludes a second stop at the Museum campus. At the moment, the Cabin is only
available for school groups as part of the Museum's "Cabin Days" program. Onsite, it can be
enjoyed by any visitor to the Museum, and, through the "Discovery Pass" partnership with the St.
Joseph County Public Library, any City of South Bend or St. Joseph County resident can visit the
museums for free.
C. Safety.
Often at Cabin Days, the safety of school children has been raised by teachers. The
proposed Museum site has accessible restrooms (Leeper Park East has none for students) and
concerns have been raised regarding risks due to close proximity to a major roadway and the St.
Joseph River, as well as lack of control of access by strangers and passers-by.
D. Precedence.
HPC noted in the Petition denial that relocation "betrays the ... historic value of the
location." However, in its 200 years, the Cabin, now in its fourth location, was moved previous
times for the convenience of other projects — and not for historic preservation or due the historic
value of the new locations. The Cabin's original site was not even in the park, but on the north side
of the St. Joseph River. Though proximity to the nearby river has historic value, the river itself
cannot be used for interpretation due to safety concerns.
Though the Cabin enjoys National Register and Local Landmark status by virtue of being
located in Leeper Park, both listings include criteria for landscape status as listed by the HPC that
scarcely mention the Cabin as a contributing factor — only that it exists therein. The crux of both
designations is George Kessler's 1915 master plan, in which the Cabin does not appear, despite at
r -I
that time having been in the park for two decades. Kessler clearly did not intend the Cabin to be a
significant part of his plan, and it should not be considered thus for the statuses conferred on the
park because of his planning. In fact, during its entire history in the park, the Cabin has been an
obstacle — merely in the way, to be moved at the whim of the pumping station.
The proposed 2020 move will be the first time in 200 years that the cabin is to be moved
with intent, to provide a better space for the structure as well as a more sensible place for
programming. It appears that a rule made within the last 25 years is being interpreted to prevent
such a move.
E. Public Support.
The relocation of the Cabin is in the best interests of the public, and the project has received
such overwhelming public support. The Museum held a public forum, attended by over fifty (50)
members, during which the Cabin relocation project was discussed at length and questions
answered. Many spoke in favor of the project— and none against. We received letters from VPA,
which operates Leeper Park, fully supporting our move. A true and accurate copy of the letter is
attached as Exhibit 3. We also received letters of support from the superintendents of both South
Bend and PHM school systems, supporting the educational value of relocating the cabin, as well
as one from the Near West Side Neighborhood, which encompasses its future site. True and
accurate copies of such letters are attached as Exhibits 4 and 5, respectively.
At the HPC hearing on June 15, several members of the community and one teacher spoke
out in favor. Though a handful of letters against the move were received, nearly all were based on
emotional arguments or an incomplete understanding of the Museum's current and planned future
usage. Additionally, a letter from the DNR was read as being "against" the move, despite the letter
not reading as such — only cautioning careful thought. A true and accurate copy of the letter is
-7-
attached as Exhibit 6. Careful thought has been given and, respectfully, the relocation of the Cabin
is indeed in the best interests of both the Cabin and the community.
V. CONCLUSION.
For all these reasons, the Museum respectfully requests that the Common Council reverse
the denial by HPC of the Museum's Petition as arbitrary, capricious and contrary to law and
unsupported by substantial evidence. The Cabin's proposed new, permanent site at the Museum's
campus will provide improved preservation and security for the Cabin, increased safety and
accessibility for visitors, and expanded education outreach and benefit to the public.
-8-
correct.
VERIFICATION
I affirm under the pains and penalties of perjury that the foregoing facts are true and
'®
Interim Executive Dir, or,
NORTHERN INDIANA AL SOCIETY,
INC. D/B/A THE HISTORY MUSEUM
Dated: 9114/90aa
Respectfully submitted,
J J. Tuesley (21850-71),
Volunteer President and Member of the
Board of Directors,
NORTHERN INDIANA HISTORICAL SOCIETY,
INC. D/B/A THE HISTORY MUSEUM
BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
700 1" Source Bank Center
100 N. Michigan Street
South Bend, Indiana 46601
Telephone: (574) 233-1171
Attorneys for Petitioner/Appellant
NORTHERN INDIANA HISTORICAL SOCIETY,
INC. D/B/A THE HISTORY MUSEUM
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that service of the above document as made on the 1��day of August, 2020, by
email (with consent) to:
DMS 17975475v1
Sandra Kennedy, Esq.
Assistant City Attorney
Legal Department
CITY OF SOUTH BEND
227 W. Jefferson Blvd., Ste. 1200
South Bend, Indiana 46601
Email: skennedvgsouthbendin.gov
10-
s W. Tuesley
STATE OF INDIANA }
) SS:
COUNTY OF ST. JOSEPH )
NORTHERN INDIANA
HISTORICAL SOCIETY, INC.,
D/B/A THE HISTORY MUSEUM,
Appellant,
V.
CITY OF SOUTH BEND
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
COMMISSION,
Appellee.
APPEAL NO. COA#2020-0302
CERTIFICATION OF RECORD
I, Elicia Feasel, Historic Preservation Administrator for the City of South Bend, Indiana
certify that:
1. I am the Historic Preservation Administrator for the City of South Bend, Indiana, and
act as staff to the Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph
County (the "Commission").
2. 1 am the custodian of records for the Commission.
3. Copies of the following documents, which are attached to this Certification of Record,
are true and complete copies of records in my custody and the custody of the
Commission:
a) Meeting Agenda for the City of South Bend Historic Preservation Commission
on March 16, 2020 that was cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic;
b) Pierre Navarre Cabin, Leeper Park — COA#2020-0302 Packet dated March 9,
2020;
c) Meeting Agenda for the City of South Bend Historic Preservation Commission
on April 20, 2020 that was cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic;
1
d) Meeting Agenda for the City of South Bend Historic Preservation Commission
on May 18, 2020 that was cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic;
e) Meeting Agenda for the City of South Bend Historic Preservation Commission
on June 15, 2020;
f) Minutes of the Meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend
and St. Joseph County on June 15, 2020, approved by the Commission on
August 17, 2020; and
g) Pierre Navarre Cabin, Lceper Park Denial Letter for COA#2020-0302 issued to
Brian Harding, Kristen Erickson, and The History Museum, dated June 16,
2020.
4. The attached records are maintained in the course of regularly conducted activity and
are all of documents of record pertaining to COA#2020-0302.
I hereby certify under the penalties for perjury that the foregoing representations are true
and accurate.
Dated: August 20, 2020 09_
Elicia F4el, Historic Preservation Administrator
City of South Bend
STATE OF INDIANA )
) SS:
COUNTY OF ST. ,JOSEPH )
Before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public for Porter County and the State of Indiana, this
20th day of August, 2020, personally appeared, Elicia Feasel, to me known as the Historic Preservation
Administrator for the City of South Bend and acknowledged execution of the foregoing Certification
of Record.
F, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed my official seal
JULIEANNE WISNEa
Notary Public - Seal
Porter County - State of Indiana
Commission Number 702018
My Commission Expires Jun 25, 2025
Julie nnc WJsner, Not
Public
Commission expires: June 25, 2025
Resident of St. Joseph County, Indiana
2
CITY OF SOUTH BEND
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
The MONDAY, MARCH 16, 2020 meeting of the
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION of SOUTH BEND and St.
JOSEPH COUNTY
has been CANCELED.
The next meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission will be
Monday, April 20th, 2020
COUNTY—CITY BUILDING, 13TH FLOOR, ROOM 1308 at 5:30 PM
Telephone interpreter service is available upon request free of charge for individuals with limited English
proficiency. Auxiliary aid or other services are available upon request free of charge.
Please Give reasonable advance reouest when possible.
MICHELE GELFMAN
PRESIDENT
A CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELICIA FET.SEL
OF TINE NATTQHAL PARK SERVICE HISTORIC PRESERVF.TION Amu NISTRATOR
EXCELLENCE ACCOUNTABILITY; INNOVATION', INCLUSION 1 EMPOWERMENT
14005County-City Building- 227W. Jefferson Blvd. South Bend.Indiana 46601 p574.235.9371 _ f574.235.9201 southbendin.gov
04SOt�fJ pFIQ �-..
CITY OF SOUTH BEND
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSIOI\
MEETING AGENDA—MONDAY, MARCH 16,2020— 5:30 PM
COUNTY — CITY BUILDING 13 T4 FLOOR, ROOM 1308
I. CALL TO ORDER
II, ROLL CALL
Ill. PUBLIC HEARING
a. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
i. 2020-0224 713 W LaSalle Local Landmark Ordinance No. 7858-88; National
Register of Historic Places West LaSalle District
ii. 2020-0224A 617-619 Cushing Local Landmark Ordinance No. 8142-90
iii. 2020-0302 907 Riverside Local Landmark Ordinance No. 8734-96; National
Register of Historic Places Leeper Park
IV. PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR
V. HPCTRAINING
a. Historic Preservation 201— led by Elicia Feasel, historic preservation administrator and Adam Toering,
historic preservation specialist
VI. REGULAR BUSINESS
a. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
I. January 21, 2020
ii. February 17, 2020
b. STAFFREPORTS
i. Administrative Approvals
c. COMMITTEE REPORTS
I. Disposition of Historic Preservation Assets
il. Standards Update
VII. OLD BUSINESS
VIII. NEW BUSINESS
IX. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS
X. ADJOURNMENT
Telephone interpreter service is available upon request free of charge for individuals with limited English
proficiency. Auxiliary aid or other services are available upon request free of charge.
Please Rive reasonable advance request when possible.
MICHELE GELkYAN A CER-rittEU LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELiciA FEASEL
PRF.SI➢ENT OF THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE HISTORIC PPESE4w1TIOIi ADMINISTRATOR
EXCELLENCE I ACCOUNTABILITY I INNOVATION I INCLUSION I EMPOWERMENT
14005 County -City Building 1227 W. Jefferson Blvd. I South Bend, Indiana 466011 p 574.235.9371 1 f 574.235.9201 1 southbendin.gov
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/1897/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: Oulslanding
DESCRIPTION OF STRUC'T'URE/ 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 Lecper 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.'
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 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: West Lagoon (Duck Pond), 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.
'
Ltanx, Park C.hmod Lad qnc &pgrt, prepared by Westerly Group for the Historic Preservation Cmmnission or South Rend and Sl. Joseph County,
May 1998.
mid.
Ibid.
' Malcolm Cairns, ASI A.' Leper Park Historic DistriclT National Regiscr al'Hislnric Places Inventory/Nnminatio n Pomn, NR -141 I. South Bend,
SI. Joseph County, Indiana, June 15, 2000.
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 Wes( 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
Banking 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: i on each side of the 3 bump
outs along the walk, I close to Lafayette and I 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 Bower 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 a larger interpretive
site. See attacher/ 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,
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.
If. The land, streets, island(s), street lighting, park lighting, topography, vistas, vegetation, architectural elements, structures, spatial
organization, street furniture, sewer covens, electrical and water vault and/or manholes covens, parking areas are subject to the
terms of the landscape guidelines herein slated.
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 imponanl aspects of a landscape, lhereforo, 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 cast 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 entirely 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 court dialing special organizational features shall be retained in their existing configuration and shall be maintained
through proper drainage, access and erosion control, panning 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 sum.
11. 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 die landscape shall not be allowed.
14. Intrusive views or new construction rally 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.
I. 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 irthey 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 W PA
island and slough Slone 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, 29, and 9.10 for additional Standards and Criteria that may apply.
Refer to Section 9.2.2 for items within this section which shall be preserved. Also included in this section shall be the diverse
variety of trees, shrubs, bushes and other vegetation which may or may not be indigenous to this region. List of such types of
vegetation can be in lists and invenna ies 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. _
I. Features which shall be preserved me [tide: the cluck 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 feafums shall be retained and maintained.
3. Existing water courses or bodies should not be alleged. 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 wil I be considered if they do not alter Ure 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 leature 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, proRle,
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. W hcn appropriate from in ecological perspective, dredging of waterways shall be pet trilled 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,
Sculphire, Monuments, Memorials, Planters, Urns, etc.)
Refcr to Sections 9.11 B, C and D regarding treatment of materials and features; and Sections 9.2, 93, 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.
e 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 Kesslcr in 1912.
i. All Sidewalks on Lafayette Boulevard, Riverside Drive, Park Lane (Foote Street), Bartlett Sheet and Michigan Street.
j. The Retaining Wall ort 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.
I. The Log Cabin known as the Navarre House, and the footings of the cabin/house which was burned down.
in. 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 Si. Joseph River.
p. All Park Benchcs.
q. All Manhole Covers, Sever 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 tan 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, Ums, Curbings, Roadways, Marker Stones. Sundials, Well -
Head Covers, Fences, I iel1ises, 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 oFnew furnishings and objects will be considered if they (to nal 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
I. Removal of the speakers atop Pump House Number 3 is encouraged.
B. Masonry (Brick, Stone, Term Cotta, Concrete, Stucco, and Mortar)
I. [intentionally left blank]
2. Original or later contributing masonry materials, feature, details, surfaces and or'nanientntion 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 demiI 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.
g. Use of mcehanictd saws and hammers shall nut 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 die cleaning nrethod(s) shall be reviewed and approved on site by staff of the Historic Preservation Commission of
South Bend and St. Joseph County. Test patches should always be carried out well in advance of cleaning (including exposure to all
seasons if possible.)
14. Sandblasting (wet or dry), wire brushing, or similar abrasive Cleaning methods shall not be permitted. Doing so changes the visual
quality of the mate, int 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 extraodinary 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
I. [intentionally IeR 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 hire will expose the surface to the effects of weathering.
S. Damage or deteriorated paint should be removed to the next sound layer using the mildest method possible.
9. Propane or butune 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 he 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)
L 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. Deteriormed 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 mrd detail of installation.
4. When replacement of maurials or elements is necessary, it should be based on physical evidence or documentary evidence.
S. If using the same material is not lechnically or economically feasible then compatible substitute materials may be considered.
6. Cleaning of mewl 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.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
OF SOUTH BEND AND ST. JOSEPH COUNTY
LOCATION MAP - Map showing location of the property and surrounding area (Google Maps)
0
i
. .Y cY. Podallpy '4�
%%� - I ur'l InIZLIl011i �,YY��
/l nG
*��1+9 Pkv °'. Nokamu Park
(, p
A
e r
f• {
b3n , I I r
Gy lrpl.. P, r I lo mn.d
•• F ..innloyfL Y�
+d L L IL
�r Nllea AV. Dug PA
Gr.
n �
i
no til
AERIEL MAP - highlighted property on map (MACOG)
Iraud coMy la: mx-1 W6'U1W
(T:.npr Nsm¢'. LkkP;H B:FY.
PrOLPr51WW5110: 0pSi PUS ) PI L16UEPk c 111
Vaal 4.1Y:�'0:-1]>'0L'LL'C4 0:0
4 kea' r
JL19niDlmle
rani R:La+3
Phone: 574/235.9371 Fax: 574/235.9021 Email: hpcsbsjc@southbendin.gov
11
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
OF SOUTH BEND AND ST. JOSEPH COUNTY
Phone: 574/235.9371 Fax: 574/235.9021 Email: hpcsbsjc@sottthbendin.gov
13
APPLICATION FEE
The following schedule or fees shall apply to any Applleatlonfora Certificate OfApprnpriateness:
Routine Maintenance Exclusion (Staff Approval) S 20.00
or
Commission Review S 20.00
Payment must accompany the application at the time of submission. For electronically submitted application, payment
must reach the HPC office within 48 -hours following transmission.
REQUIRED DOCUMENTATION AND SITE PLANS
The Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph County cannot render judgment nor process an
Application without specific documentation. Comprehensive doculnentatimt protects both the owner of the property
submitting tate Application as well as providing a complete understanding of the project for the commissioners and
staff when rendering a decision. Problems often occur during a project review or during the execution of the project
when one or both parties are unclear as to the specifics. Applications will NOT be processed without all required fees
and documentation.
When an Application has been scheduled for any meeting where a review and decision are to be rendered, the owner
and any architect or contractor (s) retained for the project must attend such meetings. Failure by the owner, architect,
or contractor to attend such meetings may result in denial of the Application due to insufficient representation.
Documentation shall include: detailed written description of the project including materials to be used, scale, dimen-
sions, construction methods, finishes, manufacturers' brochures and specifications and photographs of the area(s)
which the project will affect.
Photographs may be submitted in digital format, or in photographic print. When a project involves blueprints and/or
site plans, one (1) set shall be submitted with the Application. Any documentation submitted to this office cannot be
returned to the applicant.
INSPECTION AUTHORITY
All projects will be inspected during and following execution, for compliance with the decision (s) rendered by the
Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph County.
Owner acknowledges that while the Historic Preservation Commission only considers Certificates of Appropriateness
for exterior features, under certain circumstances it may be necessary for the Commission Staff to have access to the
interior of the building in order to accurately assess the condition of the exterior feature and that the lack of access to
the interior may prevent the Commission Staff from making a favorable recommendation.
Any work performed on a historic landmark or in an historic district which does not conform to the Certificate of Ap-
propriateness certificate, shall be immediately halted by the Historic Preservation Commission and the Building De-
partment of South Bend and St. Joseph County.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL DISCLOSURE
Certificates Of Appropriateness will be filed with the Building Department of South Bend and St. Joseph County when
the applicant also is required to obtain a building permit or other such permit issued by that department. (The appli-
cant may pickup their Certificate at that location). When no building or other permits are required from the Build-
ing Department, the Certificate will be mailed directly to the applicant.
15
Navarre Cabin
Homestead Project
Supplement to be attached
to Certificate of Appropriateness Application
dated February 3, 2020
Submitted By:
The History Museum
South Bend, Indiana
March 2, 2020
Leeper Park East Preliminary Site Plan
Satellite view of
current cabin site.
Drawing of current
cabin site.
Proposed plan after
cabin's relocation.
19
sr
IIISTORN, file. R'I'. dOSIH'II CMt\"I'1•.
ollIll
,,,r16r'I b, 11
"Olow.
sllwicirI n I ur lar rl -ed; rondh
�t,plte,l etr ,t: urd Iv,mv. Somptim,
11ir141ernnll; I-,not.1 I'ourl road Lpnr
abr
I'r'I`1'nrIIQ, mons :; RonIh 11 Int rev..
oI"
. nr 1'%dIll 'dsl^rr, r" md; nod ILImmn11:I
'fhc hnlrling and IIallin rmmd.'s
rvn Il rad. town th valley of ter Ivauhuhcr.,
fu enhlriol, sn 1 tuttil within a fns.
,pb m;
1hour III, spm'Isuon s Ile] I.
r''rr` lrr,at,. ?y nvn rrr w1wit in his winm. is
fc' trr,rtge -
lu han' boeo n tm61e �, :..Irncn u' vl;;-
GOIw>iy for in h IL'I't, bol
mmdlnriJ•
1:31
\u9hr.Iu lrli wl 11 r„I IS'.
Ih. .i•I, r nw, rel L. 1 I.r pvi; ,hir•.
rl i •:u'ed Inr hr Ihr it, r 1 ti...I!1, Rt n•.I 'I•
its tsnal I loon:III.• I"'Inrir r,.ln Bevan--
Pho.r. milli IL, I-anit'd 11,m,.s nrenlp'il::
Ow it( of the I...nur ,d Ibis it o. I.i•glrer e. u-
lltoun mill l I't Ir h. r r in II Id?
IMS Ic mill II:'r \ narr II 1 9,ir1 'rn
I I,, I,mgnr p iL. mhrI It,, i
do,l- is p:'sr'rcurl. mol .,,,I .rah:. lil:cwixr
the 'n,'. 1'ue hec, .w hor, ill, ,vtlerprkia••
for Irad,, set up hi-. Indi.,. hem„ i❑ the
RWrASCP: AND TRADLY6 POST BUILT 13YPIP,IME NAV,ARR?, IS Ic_o, AND SOK CRE
SRltt'I:D IN 1, BIiPUR PARIC, IN. TIM CITY OP. SOUTH MIND.
nlltei• slenderly built” On the removalof mildcrnmis, uom nem4y out hundred yc:uy
IN Poltasaloo res to Ilic crest, in 1840,: he ngo. '
leatWilli the tribe, but afterwards returned. qv. THE POST srrrt,aas.
to this county, @hcrc he died at the l omc
`f hill IIJU91ltoe ill South 1301111, I)eecmher Sec. 1.—Arzsrs CoRvmonnn.—'Phe first
:'1. IRii9. Ili, lied" rats in Ceder chgwn. Ame.ri an. Home established within the limits
13m,'I:q mvn- \nh'n Unnle. Thr. lel; house.. of St. Soseph.'county Vote that of Alexis
Lnill Lr \lu,rrc in 1820, which was Ilw first Coquillnrd, who-. is usuallyregarded as the
lr lhllc 9lLliryl it, St.:Irind u
fonder of the aiq of South Bend, The
°I,r,, tI.I, Punea•, ;cul hie It.. lwldmCph.rmmt}•,hn16 continuity of our history is well preserved in
r I b.,III Lglivn. tin Ino;; u: Id I hs. the life of lir. Coquillnrd. Wells he was it ..
log Ire ,,,l ba Ihis riny. 11. on, pr rnb.,l I'LIP tradm' mrd of French dexeent, as mere ?
\ I I yW,rR of :cull m•u I and Plrin- MOSS of los predec clams in the volley of the {
TII. Chlarg; Is.l 1. 51. .7owph, amd ,while lm erns nfivays on -
r '
I toward's County History, page 131
Tnx Ila. en w tM w.va. vv
Mate wte1114,Uxet hill- Ien wF
tN hare+ ..0..bcbe M "Wim
IPw. ruPlh wi, W nr1YM lee
Ctnit4 w prAnmr teal mtnnnnc
Will til. ICL .1. Boma w Onate
Th . .. .db fhl well; I.
wawa mmw awr y . m.ee, In
ma u.P.. e.nL S.bL Te. lllh .-
..If
...If w . et
hp,r md.. II .n m. mme .I
Prawln. N.-1- ul. ebt"rle xtm..
W.. .M WYf. r, Half dowel bt l the
Iwro w yaullr w<Ir4 whad Of. 11
• eougnuu+ 4m ud aW Il.
�mnN nwld M hhm v' Fol woe
ry Raln aaY•r... TAn Ilntatmf
4I.. the .vnlm .. enl
Yon .p ,nn dw pm Ilne IL R
Ur1!1. (NT " PNPI.;rnt Innml,er.
�r„mMnl lu )•'ll, .I;,nR IA%
MUl.
1 Pr /nrnnlln. Nx ll.,er •,,
. elll In Inn r,rYll. \'nrY IlYelf flr,
01D'UBM An IT Al"...
� IAn Y..FlrM1Aingrnwn rrJnn�Un Ll
J1,.Th r Ilq.
• (.Al.eeManrYHlt.II,uL.Anvva, neItlxhxnl,,rtIlnlrorn h4l.t
unrllIl,altn.lPnytb1nnt.n1..l1M1 A nMI_MnYlNaxYPrlF•.1.lr 1,e.-le1.0hll1!FNm SJIIN.neAn1lI1Pmib4nC^
\.Inm
A rl..r1.
Blp lRna rn1er.
.a'vlrry mm. Mn •lfmi rrvm IAx
ph nLl Mvn ail Xnen.•, lIInO� pn•1
' rr,Y nV lu elr •nn n tom Il,r
yd fremTW IcdYn
all cli"lu(F1n111hrtIM'A .MM lIJ.Aa
1 nlLs xml SII Ill. n,anlrf M1T bf
mll- -rh rob• K IF. all. It. !eu:
..11115 nil rx
%f C•gnlllanI TSYAN. Evrvrnc,
nna An n1AnN 1Ae. 1 rota I•f NI
.Ill . 11. lnutlen m 1". mm mrn
!nn•tr 1 . a tll,r Illr MM Clw.
nl hhlErrnxH FI4)n1 In A,n pro
rnn1N prrimaxell�tl, dlt :n1•u An
Y w 14 N..r em,p
Ut Elwur l If
Wl 11 4a . "I",
taarRh".x lY.— M1aa.
w...rl• . .t Len raw.
U.0 W (WI <P.:vN. bw xt p.n
,
N-V--RV8 CAnM T (IYllll\'.\f. CIiF; �I
19YgceeJ 4Y I. CIL\ In 1?Y!.I
fill --I, "' ""I" b\n wd .Fn n.n n r..l ill el,lla:' I.
-Ynn all I.In"'.l.y," ,:m m„ T.. "pnnln ,::l,
TA. N.mv N Nry n urrlw Lu ��len roll
TFn nLl luww .1411 I,I all, I."". nn fl=' i IL.nriln•f Ln xNsw 6% m,v .r
:M1c M
a l,rl.f K+np4e BJ IFn mIIM1' ,il% ;t+!. n.l• le 711. ,II \I• Itll ;
nmttnl. n• .1 h 4m,1 , !I11:el I'll
n
r'I rv111.n �T11u�
?rcJ'T n FL% , lm ,.t lrm l.:1. 1 nl: a n v,e!, t If n.. I;+tn
J1 PM1 rlr.J .1-1 ablam�r .nl n; m ;r Ilnlnc nn. hit I--.
ue 11, Nni—", 1.—., n b
If. .e d nn e..... n. n.r;; �..",:.•i nn i°i:i:c .F.x:, f.",i:.'Ill 'I
!-!n thl9fNn ITqubl Slur•, nN,nn lt. n!Inml tllifm In 101:16
+ .man xr n4lvc 1�. 4n=nPn1.,
n(n +Llb «1!kl tMn r.rh ivtf+.nr x! rnllr Ld1�I
loi lain (n IM )pI l{:n an m atl•`nl
1nviAleinr•. nFM n NLuh,,mr..nmPilnwr xa:wwnmwinYYe.nl.nu.I„•lm+ 1r.o1-r h.n.u, lrnnm;lI u,•M,L:
I l
°m�Nni 11 1Fh.I
•
nP u. p..nl a,IK nr N ,-, rot , ;i nor n,lm.Nlnl al„m� ei'rrer
IvreL d!.I+r.nYrt nn.l 1!n .Ilrnn4%, Snc.w Wr. 11.. ,I,Itanl 1n iM�
il Flx dcllcnl. II<• a Mr(KIIS ul
Will,a , 'Alf.” Inn Mnlnrrys'.1] 111x1, n I ti� I
tTaml x -n.• In d,•• 4prl Iru.
nxe w n. w<v;awnl rot IMI IW 1..u1. I pa:m. .1f4r a ter )n•,e' n.,h I
f�i bi.n.Itne11 rMlanlUoml•• mnnl I1 qon, n I'. nl
3.n II•r. in
South Send Tribune, June 28, 1902.
,wlrnrn meelnrS. Fon• Mh . it.
n s rz.R f Ln•M. F4dfAt, efh,
mmPLth n. "110% talr hml pvn
yw. A[a•Ivlxlf wlla alw,i,.Y`
MM TI11t In FM .11 he h
fa+vl+n ulkn the
Ip•hnv and 11.n wel�n .Kuh1
V,d Nfff \y Yepwn w Hilo .y
IAeO,!.
IS nWlrl lanNnU An n q•.1 v
n.vi'. o'a:ser Ft11T le IFx m.
IWY. {M From„ nmld .toll M
In
at,
23
Navarre Cabin
Homestead Project
Application Attachment for Certificate of Appropriateness
February 3, 2020
Respectfully Submitted By:
The History Museum
808 W. Washington Street
South Bend, IN 46601
2.5
APPLICATIONFEE
The following schedule of fees shall apply to any AppRealion fora Certifreate 0J•Appropr4deness;
Routine Maintenance Exclusion (Staff Approval) $ 20.00
or
Commission Review $ 20.00
Payment must accompany the application at the time of submission. For electronically submitted application, payment
must reach the HPC office within 48 -hours following transmission.
REQUIRED DOCUMENTATION AND SITE PLANS
The Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph County cannot render judgment nor process an
Application without specific documentation. Comprehensive documentation protects both the owner of the property
submitting the Application as well as providing a complete understanding of the project toy the commissioners and
staff when rendering a decision. Problems often occur during a project review or (luring the execution of the project
when one or both parties are unclear as to the specifics. Applications will NOT be Inveessed without all regabed fees
and docrmrentrttlon.
When an Application has been scheduled for any meeting where a, review and decision are to be rendered, the owner
and any architect or contractor (s) retained for the project aurst attend such meetings, Fallare by dee owner, areldtect,
or conanctar•to attend smelt nreelings may result in denial of theApplicwdon due to insufficient presentation,
Documentation shall include: detailed written description of the project including materials to be used, scale, dimen-
sions, construction methods, finished, manufacturers' brochures and specifications and photographs of the area (s)
which the project will affect.
Photographs may be submitted in digital format, or in photographic print. When a project involves blueprints and/or
site plans, one (1) set shall be submitted with the Application. Any documentation submitted to this office cannot be
returned to the applicant.
INSPECTION AUTHOlaTY
All projects will be inspected during and following execution, for compliance with the decision (s) rendered by the
Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph County.
Owner acknowledges that while the Historic heservation Commission only considers Certifientes of Appropriateness
for exterior features, under certain circumstances it may be necessary for the Commission Staff to have access to the
interior of the building in order to accurately assess the condition of the exterior feature and that the tacit of access to
the interior may prevent the Commission Staff from making a fnvorable recommendation.
Any work performed on a historic landmark or in an historic district which does not conform to the Certificate of Ap-
propriateness certificate, shall be immediately halted by the Historic Preservation Commission and the Building De-
partment of South Bend and St. Joseph County.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL DISCLOSURE
Certificates Of Appropriateness will be filed with the Building Department of South Bend and St. Joseph County when
the applionnt also is required to obtain a building permil or other such permit issued by that deparhnent. ('The appli-
cant may pith up Moir Cerllfrcate al that luentlon). When no building or other permits are required from the Build-
ing Department, the Certificate will be mailed directly to the applicant.
27
Part 1: Navarre History
Pierre Freischutz Navarre was the first man of European descent to settle in St.
Joseph County. He was an educated man of French ancestry, born in 1787 in
Michigan Territory near Detroit, Navarre came to this area as an agent for John
Jacob Astor's American Fur Company. In 1820, he built his cabin and established a
trading post on the northeast bank of the St. Joseph River, with the Intent to trade
forfurs with the area Native population. He and his wife, a Potawatomi woman
named Angelique Kechoueckouay, lived on the site there with their large family,
gaining title in 1831 to the 62.6 acres surrounding the site. Pierre Navarre and his
family left South Bend in 1835 to join other Potawatomi who were forcibly
removed to Kansas, though Angelique passed away shortly after their relocation.
After her death, Navarre returned to the area, working as a farmer and trader, Figure 1: Pierre Novmre
selling goods along the Kankakee River. Pierre Navarre passed away in 1864 and Is buried in Cedar Grove
Cemetery at the University of Notre Dame.
The original location of Navarre's cabin is recognized today as 123 West North Shore Drive, on the north
bank of the St. Joseph River. Navarre sited his cabin for easy access to the river, the primary means of
transportation for trappers and traders before established roads. His associated homestead extended
from the river's edge north to what today is Marquette Avenue. Navarre was recorded as living in the
cabin by Father Sorin during an 1850 parish census. Following his death in 1864, Navarre's land became
the property of Samuel Leeper. The builders of Navarre Place (today's magnificent homes along North
Shore Drive) purchased the Navarre property from Leepers heirs for residential development. In
recognition of its historical significance, the developers donated the Navarre Cabin to the Northern
Indiana Historical Society in May of 1895. The Society's original unrealized intent was to relocate the
building to Howard Park; in 1901, the South Bend Board of Public Works agreed to allow the cabin to be
moved to a location on the west side of the river. The cabin was moved In 1904 by Alexander Staples and
his firm, White & Staples, to a site noted as Bartlett/Marion Streets.
Around this time, Leeper Park's design was being developed by Herman H. Beyer, Park Superintendent. In
1911, noted landscape architect George Edward Kesslerwas hired to develop a master plan for the park.
As the city expanded, the North Pumping Station required expansion as well. It was enlarged in 1912, and
Wellhouse k2 added in 1915. In 1916, the Navarre Cabin was once again relocated to a site next to the
north/northwest end of the reservoir to make way for further development. In 1918, a (historically
Inaccurate) brick chimney and fireplace were added as part of its remodeling. The cabin was used by the
local Boy Scouts as their meeting place from 1925 until World War 11. The cabin was once again moved in
1954 to Its current location to create distance from the reservoir, against which it previously abutted.
Another inappropriate chimney and fireplace, this time of stone, were added along with landscaped
paths.
In 2000, the cabin had deteriorated to the extent that its survival was in doubt, and it was described as an
eyesore in the park. The NIHS partnered with the Historic Preservation Commission, and with the
assistance of the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Memorial Hospital (now Memorial Hospital of
South Bend/Beacon Health), and other local foundations, $150,000 was raised to hire the Leatherwood
Company, the nation's leading log cabin restoration company, to evaluate and restore the cabin. The
company meticulously documented, disassembled, and reconstructed the cabin on stone piers as It would
have been in the 1820s. Today, the cabin is used as an interpretive site on a limited basis due to the
remote location and logistical issues such as lack of storage for demonstration materials, firewood, etc.
29
Fiume 4: The cob") In its third lumfion, obutling the reservoh believed to be 19205. Note the historiro ly tnrmrate
additions and brick chimney.
Figure 5: Aerial photograph of(eeper Park, 1920s. Cabin Is highlighted in inset photo. Note the
historically Inaccurate additions and brick chimney.
Figure 8: The building in the early stages of the restoration process, 2G06.
Figure 9: Navarre Cabin post -restoration, 2006.
Part 2: Proposed Homestead Plan
Background
In 2010, owing to concerns about security in Leeper Park East and a desire to increase its utilization by
bringing the cabin closer to the museum campus, the Society began, through purchase and donation,
acquiring derelict and abandoned properties on the west side of its campus (South Laurel Street), By
2019, all properties needed for the campus expansion had been secured. Over $250,000 has been raised
to fund the property development needed to create a site for the cabin. Due to his experience in moving
houses, buildings, and historic structures, Tim Lykowski at Lykowski Construction, Inc., has been
engaged to confirm the feasibility and cost of moving the cabin from Leeper Park to the museum
campus. Property surveys have been completed, and in 2018, the landscape architecture firm of Lehman
& Lehman was engaged to develop and advise on a site plan. In 2019, The History Museum was awarded
a grant in the amount of $25,000 from Visit South Bend/Mishawaka to support moving the structure in
2020.
Benefits
The History Museum is seeking a Certificate of Appropriateness to move the historic Navarre Cabin from
its present location in Leeper Park East to an experiential pioneer homestead on the museum campus.
The goals of this project include:
1. improved interpretation
The new site of the cabin will provide a much more historically accurate context with
mature vegetation, outbuildings, and otherfeatures, Improving the breadth of a visitor's
educational experience. Utilizing first -person interpreters and informational signage
about the complex, the homestead area will provide flexibility for programming that will
not only teach guests about Pierre Navarre and his home, but lifeways of early pioneer
settlers. Open spaces will provide opportunities to build seasonal Native structures and
learn aboutthe area's first peoples as well as a place for demonstrations such as
pioneer games, crafts, and foodways. A visual barrier, as well as landscaped properties
west of Laurel Street already owned by the Society, will block views of surrounding
structures, completing the illusion of traveling back in time to Navarre's homestead.
2. Maximized visitor exposure
The Navarre Cabin's remote location in Leeper Park means that it can be used only
infrequently for historical programming. Once located on the museum campus, the
homestead will be included as an integral part of The History Museum's existing daily
operations, dramatically broadening the audience served by the cabin and its
surroundings. in 2019, the cabin saw 670 visitors— on its new site the cabin will be
included with each of The History Museum's 45,000 annual visitor experiences. The site
will be designed to be inclusive and accessible to people of all ages, backgrounds, and
abilities. The associated green space allows for broad public programming, from tours of
a few guests to large festivals.
3. Increased security
In the last two decades, the Society's Board of Directors has expressed increasing
concern for the safety of the Navarre Cabin. The structure has been vandalized and
forcibly entered several times, necessitating the installation of heavy shutters along with
35
37
Lykowski Construction, Inc.
2315E West Ireland Road
South Bend 1 in 0@l4 _ _ "71le best uun•eyou ever nuura"
Moving, shoring and raising 1000 ton capability Bonded & Insured - Telephone (574) 291-BBBS
EntailIim�km_�s i r? p9-1—con)
April 8, 2018
Mr. Jon Cook
Oliver Corporation
Re: Relocation of the Pierre Navarre Cabin at Leeper Park, South Bend, IN
Dear Jon:
The following is a cost summary for relocating the Pierre Navarre Cabin at Leeper Park to the
Oliver/Studebaker National Museum Complex, South Bend, IN. Lykowski Construction, Inc. (herein LCI)
proposes to supply the necessary equipment, labor, moving permit and insurance to safely support, move
and set the cabin on an appropriate foundation constructed by others.
1. Insurance - $5,000,000 Increased liability limits, City of South Bend requires for
moving permits, budget - $
2,500.00
2. Moving cost, Leeper Park to the Oliver/Studebaker Complex site, LCI quotes-
11,000.00
3. Overhead utility wire lifting/removal by others, budget -
3,000.00
4. Swing (1) traffic signal at S/W corner of LaSalle and Williams St. by others, budget -
1,500.00
S. Excavation by others for:
A. (9) 36"06"06" below grade foundations, budget-
500.00
B. Backfill foundations after placement, budget -
250.00
6. Placement of (9) concrete 36"x36"x36" foundations by others, budget-
2,700.00
7. Relay reclaimed stone from Leeper Park site tuck point tight to the bottom of the
cabin by others, budget -
5,300.00
8. Entry, approaches, steps - handicap accessible, budget cost - non -offered at this time.
Lykowski Construction, Inc. carries $1,000,000.00 in general liability insurance and all employees are
covered with workers' compensation. Lykowski has a floater (cargo) polity to cover the building for
damages up to $100,000.00 with a $1,500.00 deductible. Insurance limits can be increased to meet your
needs for additional costs. All insurance is house and building moving insurance that covers all shoring,
raising, and moving operations and is included in our cost. Certificates of insurance are available upon
request.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me anytime.
Best�ds,
Timothy Lyk ki, President
Lykowski Construction, Inc.
Visit us at www.lykowskiconstruction.com
39
Agure 16: View of future site facing southeast, at the
comer of Laurel Street and the drive to The History
Museum's maintenance garage. The two houses
pictured here, at 128/130 and 132 Laurel Street, ore
owned by the NIHS and slated for demolition in
summer2010.
Figure 17., View offuture site facing south, from the
driveway leading to The History Museum's
maintenance garage.
Figure 18: View of future site facing southwest, from
the Intersection of the driveway leading to The History
Museum's maintenance garage and the museum's
west parking lot.
41
Figure 22: Current location of Navarre Cabin, facing
west. In theforeground is a herb garden of dubious
historical accuracy.
Figure 23: The stone footings supporting the cabin
will be documented, dismantled, and reconstructed
at its new site.
Figure 14: An example of recent groffitl on the
exterior walls of the cabin. its new location on the
museum campus will provide increased security and
prevent vandalism.
43
Part 3: Additional Comments
The Northern Indiana Historical Society (NIHS) came into possession of the cabin in 1895, and
committed in perpetuity to its preservation, recognizing its historical importance and value to the
community. However, over the years, the cabin's frequent relocations have been more oriented toward
moving it out of the way to accommodate the needs of the Pumping Station, not Improving
interpretation. After its last move, well-intentioned efforts to periodically develop ornamental beds
around the cabin provided aesthetics that were not likely present during Navarre's time. A review of the
Leeper Park Timeline (Talley, 1996) meticulously accounts for park budgeted funding to support the
former zoo and zoo staff, with no entries showing any allocations of funds for the cabin or its site, which
could be read to indicate that the city did not consider the cabin a part of the park or operations. The
cabin also does not feature orwas even indicated in the 1915 Kessler plan for Leeper Park, indicating it
was not considered an important part of the landscape. After the Boy Scouts discontinued its use as a
meeting place, there is no indication that anything was done to care for or preserve the cabin. Mature
trees were removed, further eliminating the desired natural context. We recognize the NIHS could have
done a betterjob to preserve the cabin in the 201h century. By the early 2000s the structure had
deteriorated to the point of serious disrepair. The efforts and results of the cabin reconstruction project
shows the Society's renewed commitment to preserving this important piece of local history.
The Historic Navarre Cabin is a powerful teaching tool. But Its current location in Leeper Park makes
using it to its fullest potential very challenging. We see the cabin as an asset to be used year-round. Daily
tours will benefit from trained docents who can provide interesting facts and answer questions. Classes
will be scheduled for area school groups with our educator and volunteers serving as interpreters. To
provide forfamily learning opportunities, weekend operations are planned. Combined with new public
programs, the Navarre Homestead will become a bona fide tourism destination, its potential recognized
by the grant received from Visit South Bend/Mishawaka last year.
We understand there may be concern about removing the cabin from its slte of the last 60+ years. Many
local residents have fond memories of attending Cabin Days in the park. At the new site, Cabin Days will
continue as a dedicated school program, with the benefit of more complete interpretation and
additional dates due to its new context. In 1988, the Common Council of the City of South Bend
resolution 1602-88 designated the Navarre Cabin an honorary local historic landmark. The resolution
lists many deserving characterlstics of the cabin, including Navarre's legacy and the historic nature of
the cabin. However, it does not list the cabin's location as contributing to the designation. In 1996, the
Council passed ordinance 8735-96 declaring Leeper Park a historic landmark, a designation that is well-
deserved. The ordinance Includes criteria for landscape status from the Historic Preservation
Commission. Though the cabin is mentioned in the description of the site as a local landmark, it is not
mentioned as contributing to these criteria. What is mentioned is the park as an example of early 20`^
century suburban park planning as part of the City Beautiful movement, notably under George Kesslei s
master plan — of which the Navarre Cabin is not a part.
45
CITY OF SOUTH BEND
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSIOI'\
The MONDAY, APR11-20,2020 meeting of the
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION of SOUTH BEND and St.
JOSEPH COUNTY
has been CANCELED.
The next meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission will be
Monday, May 18, 2020
COUNTY—CITY BUILDING, 13TH FLOOR, ROOM 1308 at 5:30 PM
Telephone interpreter service is available upon request free of charge for individuals with limited English
proficiency. Auxiliary aid or other services are available upon request free of charge.
Please give reasonable advance reouest when possible.
MICHELE GELFMAN A CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERMENT ELrCEA FEASEL
PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL PARR SERVICE HISTORIC PRCSERVATTOM AOMTNTSTRATOR
EXCELLENCE', ACCOUNTABILITY; INNOVATION i INCLUSION EMPOWERMENT
14005 County -City Building 227W. Jefferson Blvd.': South Bend, Indiana 46601; p574.235.9371 (574.235.9201 southbendin.go�
GI'I'Y OF SOUTH BEND
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSIOI\
The MONDAY, May 18, 2020 meeting of the
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION of SOUTH BEND and St.
JOSEPH COUNTY
has been CANCELED.
The next meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission will be
Monday, June 15, 2020
COUNTY—CITY BUILDING, 13TH FLOOR, ROOM 1308 at 5:30 PM
Telephone interpreter service is available upon request free of charge for individuals with limited English
proficiency. Auxiliary aid or other services are available upon request free of charge.
Please give reasonable advance request when possible.
MTCRELE GELPMAH
PRESIDENT
A CERTIFIED LOCAL GOYERHMENT ELM= TEASEL
OF THE NATIOMAL PARK SERVTCE HTSTORIC PRESr.RVATTOM ADMTN[5TRATOP
EXCELLENCE i ACCOUNTABILITY; INNOVATION ;' INCLUSION EMPOWERMENT
14005County-City Building 227W. Jefferson Blvd- South Bend, Indiana46601 p574235.9371If574.235.9201 southbendingov
�yOL•t—`i Oe PO `nNl II.S OM1
P"" az' CITY OF SOUTH BEND +� ;
A HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MEETING AGENDA - MONDAY, JUNE 15, 2020-6:30 PM
COUNTY - CITY BUILDING, 4"' FLOOR, COUNCIL CHAMBERS
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
III. PUBLIC HEARING
a. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS -FROM CANCELED MARCH MEETING
i- 2020 0224 713 W Lasa Be -..a_._ ^-a'Ranee Pie. 7958 88. National
e_i ^•-'-"-1''•es'c"acef `"fest LaSalle DiSlFi-' WITHDRAWN BY APPLICANT
ii. 2020-0224A 617-619 Cushing Local Landmark Ordinance No. 8142-90
iii. 2020-0302 907 Riverside Local Landmark Ordinance No. 8734-96; National
Register of Historic Places Leeper Park
b. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS -FROM CANCELED APRIL MEETING
i. 2020-313A 705-707 Lincoln Way East Edgewater Ordinance No. 6846-80
ii. 2020-0402 1614 East Wayne East Wayne Street Ordinance No. 7796-87
iii. 2020-0403 1515 East Wayne East Wayne Street Ordinance No. 7796-87
iv. 2020-0406 729 Cottage Grove Local Landmark Ordinance No. 8055-90
c. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS- FROM CANCELED MAY MEETING
d. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS -JUNE MEETING
IV, PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR
V. REGULAR BUSINESS
a. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
L January 21, 2020
ii. February 17, 2020
b. STAFF REPORTS
I, Administrative Approvals
c. COMMITTEE REPORTS
I. Disposition of Historic Preservation Assets
ii. Standards Update
VI. OLD BUSINESS
VII. NEW BUSINESS
VIII. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS
IX. ADJOURNMENT
Telephone interpreter service is available upon request free of charge for individuals with limited English
proficiency. Auxiliary aid or other services are available upon request free of charge.
Please give reasonable advance request when possible.
MICHELE GELFM1PW A CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELICIA FEASEL
PRESIDENT Or THE NATTOHAI, PARK SERVICE HTSTORrC. PFr•.30RVATION Armin S'TRATOP
EXCELLENCE! ACCOUNTABILITY! INNOVATION: INCLUSION '; EMPOWERMENT
14005 County -City Building 227 W. Jefferson Blvd. South Bend, Indiana 46601 f)574.235.9371 f 574.235.9201'. southbendingov
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
OF SOUTH BEND AND ST. JOSEPH COUNTY
June 15"', 2020
County — City Building
4°i Floor Council Chambers
South Bend, IN 46601
1. 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 Stotme, 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
it. 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, TN
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: Oterstanding
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 I -over -I 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 area 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 now gutters and
downspouts.
APPLICATION ITEMS: 'Take off North Crest back entry door. Seal and replace with rtvod siding. Change vinyl kitchen
window above the sink, take off back enby door and replace by sliding patio door mord build a wood deck 10'x 8'trith stairs
towards the back yard. Fix basement hatch exterior eno y floor, make it fiactional and sere for use. "
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT: Applicant seeks a Certificate of Appropriateness for changes on the structure
-17 Remove exterior entrance door at northwest corner of house. Side over with wood siding to match the existing
reveal and dimensions.
22. Remove vinyl kitchen window on rear facade, replace with new JELD-WEN 'Better Series' 24 Y," W x 38" H
vinyl single hung window in white. Replace siding as needed, matching existing reveal and dimensions.
3 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 #1 Thick Deck Board.
5. Reconstruct existing basement access hatch.
Late 10 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
comers). 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 facade, one on the rear primary fagade, and one at the northwest corner of the of the rear facade). 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 fngade. 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 fmm 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 maybe
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)
I. 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
wells, 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 RECOiyIMENDATION: 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 landscapol 897/City superintendent Herman Beyer; Landscape
Architect George Kessler
Properly 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: Outstanding
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 cast/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? Sensitive extensions of Kessler's Plan continued into the 1920s and 1930s and included
Works Progress Administration funded labor for several projects.4
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
11cLLXcCP,IiLkCultur.ilLitsidw,meRejNjri, prepared by Westerly Group for the Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph
County,
May i99a.
Ibid.
Ibid.
4 Malcolm Cairns, ASLA. "Leeper Park Historic Oistrict." National Registerof 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 I. 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 I. 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 It (drilling the actual
well and trenching in the piping) will require a separate COA."
COA 2017-0306 approved installation of now 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. RM E 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 formerly within its boundary. New flower beds will be defined using
new soil, compost and plantings. A walkway of crashed 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 (I 14-032b). 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 din 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 1362 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 2017-02138 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
observationteducation 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, I close to Lafayette
and I close to the northwest comer 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 2007-06056 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: "Cnbie to be relocalerf !o the nuuernn's ores! campns ns pmt ofa [urger irrterpreli ve site. See
anached pknt for details. "
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT: The Northern Indiana Historical Society (NIRS, also known as The History
Musewn) 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 bum pits,
iii. The removal/ grading of the small sections of stone wall,
iv. The removal /tilling 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.
Lceper 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 B4' 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 tern.
Without those grant opportunities, long term maintenance of the structure will tall 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 terns 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.
I. Viows 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 islands) 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 comributing 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 some 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 prescrved
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.
11. The form and shape of individual spaces and their associated vertical clement 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 allce.
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 landforrns and Ground Plane, etc.) Refer to Sections 9.2, 9.4,
9.5, 9.8, 9.9 and 9. t0 for additional Standard and Criteria that may apply.
I. 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 W PA 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.
I. Refer to Section 9.2.2 for items within this section which shall be prescrved. 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. [fusing 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 pan of a later non -compatible design or is volunteer
vegetation inconsistent with the original design.
3. 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.
I L 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.
I. The following shall be preserved: Riverside Drive, Lafayette Boulevard, Park Lane (Foote Street), Bartlett Street, the
Alleyway cast 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 Brom 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 cumpatible 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.
II. 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
vehicular parking which ante 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.
I. 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.
Il. 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.
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).
e. The Pump Houses, number 2 and 3.
f The Edward B. Reynolds Horse and Dog Watering Fountain.
g. The Drinking Fountain in the south east portion of the central section of the park.
h. The central section of the park, the area of the large Floral Garden and Pathways as designed by George
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. All Manhole Covers, Sewer Covers and Grates, and all Electrical Underground Vault and/or Raceway
Covers.
r. The north/south alleyway east of Michigan Street, running north from Bartlett Street which used to run
between Lot 'A' and Lots 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and part of 20 of the Rockstroh Addition.
S. All Plaques, Monuments, Sculptures, Memorials, Planters, Urns, Curbings, Roadways. Marker Stones,
Sundials, Well -Head Covers, Fences, Trellises, Pergolas, Pathways, and Trees.
2. Original or later contributing furnishings and objects, 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 it'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 confu n 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.
I. 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 he based on physical or documentary evidence.
6. If using the some 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 durt may apply.
I. 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, 93, and 9.8 for
additional Standards and Criteria that may apply.
I. 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.
I. Removal of the speakers atop Pump House Number 3 is encouraged.
B. Masonry (Brick, Stone, Terra Cotta, Concrete, Stucco, and Mortar)
I. [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. [fusing the sane 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 thejoints.
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 carried out well in advance of
cleaning (including exposure to all seasons if possible.)
14. Sandblasting (wet or dry), wire brushing, or similar abrasive cleaning methods shall not be permitted. Doing so
changes the visual quality of the material and accelerates deterioration.
15. Waterproofing or water 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
I. [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 some 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)
I. 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 scriation 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 pan 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 M ichael 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 a0owed. ") and 9.7.1.1 ( "All items listed herein shall be preserved: (...J The Log Cabin known as tire
Navarre House, and the footings of the cabin/house which was burned down. ")
Prepared by
Adam Tearing, Historic Preservation Specialist
Approved by
Elicia Feasel, Historic Preservation Administrator
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 motley 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 theyjust 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 I` 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 -Harris
Madison School Corporation support this move.
Commissioner Gellman 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 Statheim 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 Gellman 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:
Corrunissioner 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 Tyclionovich 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 opporturdties 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 Navane 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
undemtilized 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. ht 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 -Hams -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 [Hove 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
comer 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 1, 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 [Hove 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, Melonie 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 Navane 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 Gelfnian (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
STAFFREPORT
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 pediinented 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-
1101 B— 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 -I 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 DecKomtors 4x4 Copper Solar pyramid post cap lights.
The structure has been lacking a second story railing for some time. One file photo from 1955 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 S' 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 Bont or on the side. Most porches
have either gabled or hipped roofs or arc 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 sec 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:
N/A
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
tl7796-87
Rating: Contributing
DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURE/ 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/I 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 2017-1 It 7A approved garage repairs and back stomt
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 mroof and masonry repairs.
APPLICATION ITEM1IS: " Replace 7 circa 1950 single Marg aluminum u•indou•s (and storm mindous) that are not original to
the house with 7Suurise (manufacturer') double lung tiny( windows with fill screens, The top sash of the aro w•indoa.s facing
the street roil[ be colon,/ -.style sioudated divirted light with grids an both the exterior and the interior in order to notch the style
ofthe original windorrr on the top f/oa+t (The bottom floor o(Ute original house has divided light French doors.) The window
fi'ornes will be white in color in outer to ,retch the house which is brick painted white. The current ahoninum windows are over
50 yews old and in a deteriorated .state (see anached pholos). "
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
IL EXISTING STRUCTURES
A. WINDOWS AND DOORS
Window and door frames arc 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 dames
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
dour 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 mcommends replacement of aluminum windows and slorm 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 Fcascl, 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 treed to be living on
the ground floor as he ages in place, that she plans to replace the roof in a cuuple 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.
Commissioner Downs-Krostenko stated that this was a project that needs to move forward.
Commissioner Deegan agreed, as did Commissioner Stalheim.
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
N7796-57
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 cast wing addition. There is a 2
story gable roof rear wing addition that was built in 1930. COA#2006-1113 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/I. COA
2009-0831A 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 o/'b&rck chain Unkjence)"
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 2l' connecting
back to the house.
This property includes lots 53 and 54 of the Sunnymcde plot, as well as the I I' 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 he forward of the building
setback: 1246 East Jefferson (chain link fence obscured by hedge along Sunnyside Avenue), 1102 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 "W hitecomb and Keller's Sunnymede."
(... J
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 cut back 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 Kees 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 roust be removed should be immediately replaced by suitable
flora. All high intensity security lights should be approved by 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 Feaset 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 comer 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 comer
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 replalting 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): 1 [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: lune 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 k8055-90
Rating: Owslrmding
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 donner. Front door is wood panel with sidelights and there are two French doors in porch.
ALTERATIONS: RM E 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 2005-03296
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 molal fanned storm windows wid+ double pone high eJ%iciency windows (Pella); replace
eslerior door m•/cracked glass and lend paint with security door. Replacements made to increase solely and energy efficiency.
Trim nem, windows in some color as original existing structure (pre -renovation). Use original siding to cover gaps. Parol wood
in window cavities to march existing pnint 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 fagade of rear porch with two vinyl windows.
2. Replace three metal windows on the side facade of rear porch with one vinyl window.
3. Install a rear rack 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 lite 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:
I. 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. waod—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)
I. 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 shalt 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
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-Kroslenko 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 Gelfman 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 Stalbeim clarified the accepted dimensions of steps per code, and the accepted distance
between balustrades.
Commissioner Gelfman 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 Gelfman 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 COVED emergency.
C. COMMTTTF.F REPORTS
i. Disposition of Historic Preservation Assets
it. 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:
i 1
Sarah Andrews, gecretary Date
CITY OF SOUTH BEND
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
The History Museum
808 West Washington Street
South Bend, IN 46601
Dear Mr. Harding, Ms. Erickson, et al --
June 16, 2020
Flied in Clerk's Office
JUL 0 7 2020
The Commissioners, at the regularly scheduled monthly Historic Preservation Commission meeting on June
15, 2020 denied approval of Certificate of Appropriateness application #2020-0302, which included the
following application items:
"Cabin to be relocated to the museum's west campus as part of a larger interpretive site. See
attached plan for details.
In making its determination, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the appropriateness of the
proposed construction, reconstruction, or alteration to the preservation of the historic
landmark, specifically, and/or the Historic Preservation District, generally; the detriment to the public
welfare if the proposed construction, reconstruction, or alteration were permitted even though it is not
deemed appropriate; and the potential hardship that the denial of a certificate of appropriateness would
cause the applicant.
Following is the record from the meeting concerning your project stating why your application was denied:
Commissioner Deegan made a motion to deny COA#2020-0302. Seconded by
Commissioner Ponder.
Four in favor, two opposed.
Vote: 4— 2. Motion to deny COA #2020-0302 is passed.
Commission President Gellman clarified that, in motions for denial, Commissioners are
required to state their reasons for denial. Roll was called.
MICHELE GELFMIW A CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELICIA FEASCL
PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL. PARK SERVICE HISTORIC PRESERVATION AUMINISTRATOR
EXCELLENCE ACCOUNTABILITY INNOVATION INCLUSION EMPOWERMENT
14005 County -City Building 227W. Jefferson Blvd South Bend Indiana 46601. p574.235.9371 f574,235.9201. southbendin.gov
CITY OF SOUTH BEND HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
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 Ponder (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 42020-0302 is denied.
Pursuant to South Bend Municipal Code Section 21-13-02(e)(5)(B), an applicant may appeal a denial of a
Certificate of Appropriateness by the Historic Preservation Commission to the Common Council, which shall
make a final determination of the application.
The Historic Preservation Commission remains committed to preserving the built environment of the City of
South Bend and unincorporated St. Joseph County.
Please contact this office for assistance, questions, or concerns.
Sincerely,
Im
Elicia Feasel
Historic Preservation Administrator
efe ase I @so u th bendi n.gov
CC Aaron Perri, Venues Parks and Art
Chuck Bulot, Building Department, City of South Bend
Tim Lykowski
Page 12
Adam Toering
Historic Preservation Specialist
atoering at7.southbendin.gov
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on August 20, 2020, I filed the foregoing document with the City of South
Bend Clerk. I further certify that the foregoing document was served on August 20, 2020 on the
following via first-class U.S. mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
The History Museum
c/o Brian Harding & Kristen Erickson
808 West Washington Street
South Bend, IN 46601
%s/Sandra L. Kennedy _
Sandra L. Kennedy (#21720-53)
Notice of Appeal
Northern Indiana Historical Society Inc.
d.b.a The History Museum
808 West Washington Street
South Bend, Indiana 46601
a
City of South Bend
Historic Preservation Commission
227 West Jefferson Blvd.
Suite 14005
South Bend, Indiana 46601
Notice of Appeal COA#2020-0302
Fllpd in Clerk'S Office
JUL A i 2020
We wish to appeal the denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness petition number
COA#2020-0302.Our appeal is in the interest of relocating the Navarre Cabin, which is now in
its 411 location due to neighborhood development and the expansion of the North Pumping
Station. Its new permanent site on the museum's campus will provide improved preservation
and security for the cabin, increased safety for visitors, and expanded educational outreach and
benefit to the public.
Date: 7-7-2020 Brian D. Harding, Interim Executive Director
The History Museum
NJ
o45pUrtr RE�. `i�;ieiisiFr.
y..
46
�P ACE'
a CITY OF SOUTH BEND Via'
865 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
The History Museum
808 West Washington Street
South Bend, IN 46601
Dear Mr. Harding, Ms. Erickson, at al --
June 16, 2020
Filed in Clerk's Office
r`.'--
JUI. a zn2a
The Commissioners, at the regularly scheduled monthly Historic Preservation Commission meeting on June
15, 2020 denied approval of Certificate of Appropriateness application #2020-0302, which included the
following application items:
"Cabin to be relocated to the museum's west campus as part of a larger interpretive site. See
attached plan for details.
In making its determination, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the appropriateness of the
proposed construction, reconstruction, or alteration to the preservation of the historic
landmark, specifically, and/or the Historic Preservation District, generally; the detriment to the public
welfare if the proposed construction, reconstruction, or alteration were permitted even though it is not
deemed appropriate; and the potential hardship that the denial of a certificate of appropriateness would
cause the applicant.
Following is the record from the meeting concerning your project stating why your application was denied:
Commissioner Deegan made a motion to deny COA#2020-0302. Seconded by
Commissioner Ponder.
Four in favor, two opposed.
Vote: 4 — 2. Motion to deny GOA #2020-0302 is passed.
Commission President Gelfman clarified that, in motions for denial, Commissioners are
required to state their reasons for denial. Roll was called.
MICHELE GELFMAN A CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELICIA FEASEL
PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL PARR SERVICE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ADMINISTRATOR
EXCELLENCE ACCOUNTABILITY INNOVATION INCLUSION EMPOWERMENT
1400S County -City Building 227 W. Jefferson Blvd. South Bend, Indiana 46601 p574.235.9371 f574.235.9201 southbendin.gov
CITY OF SOUTH BEND I HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
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 Ponder (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.
Pursuant to South Bend Municipal Code Section 21-13-02(e)(5)(B), an applicant may appeal a denial of a
Certificate of Appropriateness by the Historic Preservation Commission to the Common Council, which shall
make a final determination of the application.
The. Historic Preservation Commission remains committed to preserving the built environment of the City of
South Bend and unincorporated St. Joseph County.
Please contact this office for assistance, questions, or concerns.
Sincerely,
12
Elicia Feasel
Historic Preservation Administrator
efeasei southbendin.aov
CC Aaron Perri, Venues Parks and Art
Chuck Bulot, Building Department, City of South Bend
Tim Lykowskl
Page 12
Adam Toering
Historic Preservation Specialist
atoering(&southbendin.aov
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 Feaset 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 locations) of the cabin. Additionally, some creative pavement, stone or brick work
could similarly suggest the St. Joseph rivers 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 Navane 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 Navane 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 Navane 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, 1 am writing on
behalf of the Studebaker National Museum in support of the proposal by The History Museum to
relocate the Navane 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 Navane 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 -Hams -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."
Dear Friends,
March 12, 2020
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
prescrving 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.
South Bend Community School Corporation
PENN HARRIS,MADISON
SCHOOL CORPORATION
March 16, 2020
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,
?"7 /
Dr. Jerry Thacker
Superintendent of schools
559oo Bittersweet Rd. I Mishawaka, IN 46545 1574.259.7941
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 sitiags. 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 1 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 -Hams -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."
ZDNRofIndiana Department
Natural Resources
Division of Historic Preservation & Archaeology • 402 W. Washington Street, W274 • Indianapolis, IN 46204-2739
Phone 317-232-1646 • Fax 317-232-0693 • dhpa@dnr.IN.gov • www.IN.gov/dnr/historic
February 7, 2020
Adam Toering
Historic Preservation Specialist
Department of Community Investment
City of South Bend
227 W. Jefferson Blvd. Ste. 1400
South Bend, IN 46601
Dear Mr. Toering,
Eric Holcomb, Governor
Cameron F. Clark, Director
Ap%,
1•� O"
xmonx osuevvAnox
AMD.V(�V.fOlO4Y
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 property, 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
Assistant Director of Preservation Services
PCD: ped
enclosures: none.
The DNR mission: Protect, enhance, preserve and wisely use natural, www.DNR.IN.gov
cultural and recreational resources for the benefit of Indiana's citizens An Equal Opportunity Employer
through professional leadership, management and education.
STATE OF INDIANA
) SS
COUNTY OF ST. JOSEPH
NORTHERN INDIANA
HISTORICAL SOCIETY, INC.,
D/B/A THE HISTORY MUSEUM,
Appellant,
0
HISTORIC PRESERVATION )
COMMISSION OF SOUTH BEND)
AND ST. JOSEPH COUNTY )
Appellee. )
BEFORE THE COMMON COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA
APPEAL NO.
Filed in Clerk's Office
r --
SEP 0 3 2020
IN
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF SOUTH BEND AND ST. JOSEPH
COUNTY'S EVIDENTIARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD AND POSITION
STATEMENT
I. Introduction
A. The Establishment and Mission of the Historic Preservation Commission
The Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph County (the "HPC")
is the body charged with enforcing the Municipal Code of the City of South Bend, Indiana (the
"Code"), as it applies to historic preservation within city limits. The HPC is a joint commission
between the City of South Bend, Indiana (the "City") and St. Joseph County, Indiana (the
"County") established by the City's Ordinance No. 5565-73, adopted on September 10, 1973, and
the County's Ordinance No. 154-73, adopted on May 14, 1973, as an overlay to the units' respective
zoning ordinances. Because the HPC was established prior to July 1, 1977, it is governed only by
each respective unit's ordinance and not by state statute. (I.C. §36-7-11-2(a)). Day-to-day
management of historic preservation matters, including the oversight of two (2) full-time and one
(1) part-time historic preservation staff members ("Staff'), was transferred from the County to the
City pursuant to an Interlocal Agreement between the City and the County, dated December 12,
1
2017. The Interlocal Agreement sets forth the mission of the HPC as agreed by both the City and
the County as "to identify architecturally or historically significant buildings, structures, sites, and
objects in the City and the County and to promote the protection and preservation of the same in a
manner that enhances both human and economic welfare and that accommodates development and
redevelopment in the City and the County." This mission is also set forth in the HPC's Bylaws.
B. Membership in the HPC
The guidelines for membership in the HPC are set forth in the South Bend Municipal Code
(the "Code") at Section 21-12.04(a). The HPC's nine (9) members are unpaid volunteers appointed
by the Mayor of the City (2), the Common Council of the City (the "Common Council") (2), the
County Council (2), and the County Board of Commissioners (2). The ninth (9th) member is an
architectural historian appointed by the eight (8) members. Pursuant to Section 21-12.04(a)(2),
the members "shall be interested and knowledgeable about historic preservation in the local area."
C. Responsibilities of the HPC
The HPC identifies and advises the Common Council regarding the establishment of
Historic Preservation Districts and the designation of historic landmarks "on the basis of historical
and cultural significance, educational value and suitability for preservation." (Section 21-
12.04(b)(4)(A)). Common Council then designates historic landmarks through the passage of an
ordinance. (Section 21-12.04(b)(4)(B)).
The HPC is responsible for the establishment of "reasonable and just standards for the
preservation of historic landmarks .. . including architectural treatment, site development
requirements, and provisions concerning construction, reconstruction, alteration, demolition, or
removal of any building or structure, or parts thereof." (Section 21-12.04(b)(7)). The City
maintains a website (httns:Hsouthbendin. og v/department/community-investment/historic-
2
preservation -commission/) at which one may find an application for a COA, standards and
guidelines for specific historical sites, including the Standards and Criteria for Leeper Park, and
other useful information. With regard to historic landmarks, Section 21-12.04(b)(6) of the Code
requires the HPC to issue a COA before "the construction, reconstruction, alteration, demolition,
or moving of any exterior feature of any building, structure, or use. Certificates of appropriateness
shall be issued in accordance with the stipulations of this article."
If applicants for a COA disagree with the HPC's decision related to their COA application,
they may appeal the HPC's decision to the Common Council, pursuant to Code Section 21-
12.04(b)(6)(G)(ii).The Appellant is asking the Common Council to review and overturn a decision
of the HPC, which was made within the bounds and after due consideration of the Standards and
Criteria for Leeper Park, which is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
II. Standard of Review
In accordance with Section 6 of the "Procedures Governing Appeals of Historic
Preservation Commission to the Common Council" issued by the Office of the City Clerk, which
is attached hereto as Exhibit B, the Common Council shall determine whether the HPC's action
was:
a. Arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with
applicable law;
b. Contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity;
c. In excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, limitations, or statutory right;
d. Without observance of procedures required by applicable law and ordinance; or
e. Unsupported by substantial evidence.
3
Each member of the Common Council shall have the opportunity to comment before a motion of
disposition on the appeal is accepted by the Chairperson and a roll call vote is taken.
III. Issues
The Petitioner asserts two issues as the bases of its appeal in its Position Statement Related
to Denial of Certificate of Appropriateness No.2020-0302:
A. The HPC's decision to deny COA#2020-0302 was arbitrary, capricious and
contrary to law; and
B. The HPC's decision to deny COA#2020-0302 was unsupported by substantial
evidence.
IV. Facts
A. The Pierre Navarre Cabin located in East Leeper Park, South Bend, Indiana
Pierre Navarre was the first settler of European descent to reside permanently in St. Joseph
County. He built a cabin in 1820, which is now known as the Navarre Cabin, along the St. Joseph
River to aid in his fur trading business with the American Fur Company. In 1895, the Navarre
Cabin was donated to the Northern Indiana Historical Society, now known as The History
Museum, and was moved to the newly established Leeper Park in 1904. The Navarre Cabin moved
again in 1916 and 1954, but it has remained in the same general area of Leeper Park since 1904,
preserving its close proximity to the river. In November 1996, Leeper Park was designated as an
Historic Landmark pursuant to Ordinance No. 8734-96, which included, as part of the Common
Council's consideration, a copy of the Standards and Criteria for Leeper Park in a form
substantially similar to today's iteration of them; Ordinance No. 8734-96 and its attachments are
attached hereto as Exhibit C. Additionally, in June 2000, Leeper Park was entered into the
4
National Register of Historic Places, and the Navarre Cabin was deemed a contributing structure
thereto.
B. Standards and Criteria for Leeper Park
The HPC's Standards and Criteria for Leeper Park are published on the City's
website at httns://southbendin. og v/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Standards-and-
Guidelines Leeper-Park.pdf. Section 9.1(2) of the Standards and Criteria for Leeper Park states
the intent of the HPC's criteria is "to preserve the overall character and appearance of Leeper Park
including its spatial organization, topography, vegetation, circulation and features"; Section
9.2(12) thereof states that "Moving or demolishing historic structures that would alter spatial and
visual relationships in the landscape shall not be allowed"; and Section 9.7(1)(1) states that the
"Log Cabin known as the Navarre House" shall be preserved
C. Application for Certificate of Appropriateness
The History Museum originally applied for its COA#2020-0302 to be heard at the March
16, 2020 HPC meeting; however, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the HPC meetings were
postponed until June 15, 2020, when the History Museum's application COA#2020-0302 was
presented. Upon careful consideration and taking into account public input both for and against
the relocation of the cabin, the HPC members voted to deny COA#2020-0302.
V. Argument
A. The HPC's decision was neither arbitrary, capricious, nor contrary to law, but rather
supported by the Standards and Criteria for Leeper Park
As required by Section 21-12.04(b)(7) of the Code, the HPC developed a set of criteria for
Leeper Park, which have been in effect since Leeper Park was designated by the Common Council
as an historic landmark in 1996. In fact, the criteria used by the commissioners in making their
5
determination to deny COA#2020-0302 were set forth in the Standards and Criteria for Leeper
Park that appear to have been considered by the Common Council in determining whether to
designate Leeper Park as an historic landmark. Section 9. 1, the Introduction, to the Standards and
Criteria for Leeper Park indicates the following, "(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." The standards by which the
decision was made to deny the History Museum's application for COA#2020-0302 are as follows
under Sections 9.2(12) and 9.7(1)(1) of the Standards and Criteria for Leeper Park, specifically,
per 9.2(12) that "Moving or demolishing historic structures that would alter the spatial and visual
relationships in the landscape shall not be allowed" and per 9.7(1)(1) that " All items listed herein
shall be preserved: (1) The Log Cabin known as the Navarre House, and the footings of the
cabin/house which was burned down."
Three of the six commissioners voted in opposition of the COA because it would violate
the Standards and Criteria for Leeper Park, by which the commissioners must abide. The
are quoted as stating the following in the June 15, 2020 Minutes of a Meeting of
the Historic Preservation Commission:
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 Gellman (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
1:
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.
Commissioners Andrews, Deegan, and Gelfman all cite to the Standards and Criteria for Leeper
Park in making their decision to deny the COA for the removal of the Navarre Cabin from Leeper
Park. These Standards and Guidelines were adopted by HPC as required by Code Section 21-
12.04(b)(7). Therefore, the denial of COA#2020-0302 could not be arbitrary and capricious nor
contrary to law.
A The HPC's decision was supported by substantial evidence and made after thoughtful
consideration ofpublic interest
The removal of the Navane Cabin from Leeper Park will invalidate its status as a
contributing structure to Leeper Park, as listed on the National Register of Historic Places, as well
as remove it from the HPC's oversight as a part of the Leeper Park Local Historic Landmark.
Commissioner Stalheim, in the June 15, 2020 Minutes of a Meeting of the Historic Preservation
Commission, is quoted as clarifying his vote for denial by saying:
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.
The most important aspect of losing its status as a part of Leeper Park is that it will no longer be
designated on the National Register of Historic Places, and, therefore, lack access to federal
funding. In his letter to the HPC staff, Paul Diebold, the Assistant Director of Preservation Services
of the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, states,
"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."
He also notes that,
7
"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."
The History Museum is unconcerned with this loss of a funding source and stated that it has only
used federal funding once; however, the single use was beneficial in helping to fund the 2005
restoration of the Navarre Cabin. Additionally, as Mr. Diebold notes, unforeseen circumstances
may arise in which remaining a contributing structure to Leeper Park on the National Register of
Historic Places could provide much-needed funding for the Navarre Cabin's future maintenance
needs, and the commissioners, particularly Mr. Stalheim, clearly considered this factor in making
his decision.
The History Museum argues that the site at which the Navarre Cabin has been situated for
66 years is unsafe; however, the HPC was not provided any documentation of specific instances
supporting that the area is unsafe. The location of the Navarre Cabin seems to be more
inconvenient than a safety concern. In her opposition to the removal of the cabin from Leeper Park,
Greta Fisher, a former Architectural Historian of the HPC, states,
"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."
Understandably, parents and teachers must keep a closer eye on their school-age children when
near any road or waterway; however, inconvenience is not a valid reason to remove a historical
landmark from the landscape and terrain that provide a better learning experience and
understanding of the Navane Cabin's history.
The History Museum, in its position statement, also references that the move would prevent
the Navane Cabin from future arson, possibly alluding to the destruction of the Powell house in
1980. Farrow Powell was one of the first black homeowners listed in the US Census in South Bend
j
in 1850. In 1973, the historic Powell house was moved to Leeper Park near the Navarre Cabin.
Sadly, the Powell house was subject to irreparable damage from arson, and a plaque stands in its
place. As noted in the June 15, 2020 Minutes of a Meeting of the Historic Preservation
Commission, a letter was received from John Charles Bryant, the great -great-grandchild of Farrow
Powell, in opposition to moving the Navarre Cabin from Leeper Park. Mr. Bryant's letter reads as
follows,
"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."
The History Museum notes the "handful of letters in opposition" to the removal of the
Navarre Cabin from Leeper Park but does not take into account the opinions of the residents of the
Historical Districts near Leeper Park, including Chapin Park Historic District, the River Bend
Historic District, the Riverside Drive Local Historic District, and the North St. Joseph Street Local
Historic District. The approval and effect of the removal of the Navarre Cabin to the Leeper Park
historic neighborhoods is at least as important as approval and acceptance of the Near West Side
Neighborhood Organization, the neighborhood encompassing the West Washington Historic
District in which The History Museum is located, of the Navarre Cabin's new location. As read at
the June 15, 2020 Minutes of a Meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission, Melonie Mulkey
states in her letter of opposition (in relevant parts only),
"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 [it] 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 comer of E.
Bartlett Street and Michigan, my home was built in 1901 by Guy. D. Staples, an
E
original pioneer of the area. I consider Leeper Park to be my neighborhood and the
historic "Navarre Cabin" a central part of the park... 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."
Further, as noted by Paul Diebold of the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, if the Navarre
Cabin is removed from Leeper Park "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." Thus, the
Navarre Cabin, removed from its context, would be a non-contributing building to the West
Washington Historic District.
VI. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the HPC respectfully requests the Common Council affirm
its denial of COA#2020-0302. The Standards and Criteria for Leeper Park clearly define the ways
in which Leeper Park's features may or may not be altered and specifically state that the Navarre
Cabin shall be preserved in situ. The HPC members did not act in a capricious or arbitrary manner,
nor were their actions contrary to law. The commissioners' decision is supported by the evidence
provided to them at the public hearing on the COA. The denial of COA#2020-0302 is supported
by Ordinances passed by this Common Council as well as the substantial evidence presented
herein.
10
Respectfully Submitted,
0�du l/`
Sandra L. Kennedy (21720-53) U
Attorney for Appellee
City of South Bend, Indiana
Department of Law
1200 S. County -City Building
South Bend, Indiana 46601
11
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 d 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.
11. 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.
8. Consideration for removal of existing healthy vegetation materials and features will be
given when it is in conflict with the original design intent of the landscape, such as when
an important vista has become overgrown or when plants have grown out of scale with
their intended purpose.
9. Maintenance of, removal of, and additions of vegetation materials and features should
consider maintaining existing or intended vistas and spaces, screening intrusions, creating
new spaces where appropriate and maintaining defined areas of shade and sun.
10. Invasive vegetation shall be removed whenever technically feasible and shall be replaced
with appropriate vegetation consistent with the original design of the 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, Trials, 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.
11. 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 vehicular parking which are 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.
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).
e. The Pump Houses, number 2 and 3.
f. The Edward B. Reynolds Horse and Dog Watering Fountain.
g. The Drinking Fountain in the south east portion of the central section of the park.
h. The central section of the park, the area of the large Floral Garden and Pathways
as designed by George Kessler in 1912.
i. All Sidewalks on Lafayette Boulevard, Riverside Drive, Park Lane (Foote Street),
Bartlette 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.
in. 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. All Manhole Covers, Sewer Covers and Grates, and all Electrical Underground
Vault and/or Raceway Covers.
r. The north/south alleyway east of Michigan Street, running north from Bartlett
Street which used to run between Lot `A' and Lots 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and
part of 20 of the Rockstroh Addition.
s. All Plaques, Monuments, Sculptures, Memorials, Planters, Urns, Curbings,
Roadways, Marker Stones, Sundials, Well -Head Covers, Fences, Trelliscs,
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, Picn 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. Asses 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)
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.
8. Use of mechanical saws and hammers shall not be allowed.
9. Repointing mortar shall duplicate the original mortar in strength, composition, color,
texture, joint size, joint profile and method of application.
10. Sample panels of raking the joints and repointing shall be reviewed and approved by the
staff of the Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph County.
11. Cleaning of masonry is discouraged and should be performed only when necessary to halt
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 carried out well in advance of cleaning (including exposure to all
seasons if possible.)
14. Sandblasting (wet or dry), wire brushing, or similar abrasive cleaning methods shall not
be permitted. Doing so changes the visual quality of the material and accelerates
deterioration.
15. Waterproofing or water 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
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. When replacement of materials or elements is necessary, it should be based on physical
or documentary evidence.
6. If using the same materials or elements is necessary, it should be based on physical or
documentary evidence.
7. Cleaning of wooden elements shall use the mildest method possible.
1. 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.
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
DAWN M. JONFS. CITY CLERK
Procedures Governing Appeals of Historic
Preservation Commission to the Common Council
1. Office of the City Clerk to notify all parties of the date of the Common Council meeting
when the appeal will be heard.
2. Petitioner will have a maximum of twenty (20) minutes to present his/her case which
shall address:
a. Specific issue(s) under review
b. Statement of position by the Petitioner or his/her attorney
c. Relevant witness statements, if any
d. Requested action which the Petitioner is seeking
3. Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) will have a maximum of twenty (20) minutes to
include:
a. Statement of position by the HPC attorney
b. Relevant witness statements, if any
c. Requested action which HPC is seeking
4. Petitioner will have a maximum of five (5) minutes for rebuttal.
5. Common Council may ask questions of the parties with up to a maximum off fifteen (15)
minutes for this portion of the public hearing.
6. Common Council shall review the action of the HPC in the appeal before them and
determine whether such action was:
a. Arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with
applicable law;
b. Contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity;
c. In excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, limitations, or statutory right;
d. Without observance of procedures required by applicable law and ordinance; or
e. Unsupported by substantial evidence.
with each Council Member having the opportunity to comment before a motion of
disposition on the appeal is accepted by the Chairperson.
INTEGRITY1 SERVICES ACCESSIBILITY
BIiN(:A I..'rikmx) GRAImm D. SmRm GARRiEI. N. hI11RE1
CHIEF DFrLnNJDIRFC1nR OF Clff AFJONS Dmi-ODIRELTOR OF POLICY DROINWT VIOIATION �'��
EXCELLENCE I ACCOUNTABILITY I INNOVATION I INCLUSION I EMPOWERME FX
455 County -City Building 1227 W Jefferson Blvd. I South Bend. Indiana 466011 P 574.235.92211 f 574.235.91731 www. I
.CITY OF SOUTH BEND ; OFFICE OF THE CLERK
Proper motion of the Common Council will be acknowledged by the Chairperson of
either sustaining the action of the HPC or overruling their decision based on the evidence
provided by the parties and the governing law, followed by a roll call vote of the
Common Council.
8. Office the City Clerk shall, within a reasonable period of time, send confirmation of the
Common Council's action to all parties and maintain minutes of the public hearing, as
part of the regular meeting minutes of the Common Council.
EXCELLENCE I ACCOUNTABILITY INNOVATION I INCLUSION I EMPOWERMENT
455 County -City Building 1227W Jefferson Bvld', South Bend, Indiana 46601'.. p574.235.9221!f574235.9173 TTD574.235.5567Iw 5outhbendin.gov
ORDINANCE No. 8734-96
Passed by the Common Council of the City of South Bend,
Attest:
Attest:
November 25, 19 96
Cp
Presented by me to the Mayor of the City of South Bend, Indiana
City Clerk
President of Common Council
November 26, 19 96
Approved and signed by me 19
City Clerk
COMITTEE REPORT
TO THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND:
Your Committee
to whom was referred
BILL NO.
62-96 A BILL AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ESTABLISHING AN
HISTORIC LANDMARK FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT LEEPER PARK,
IN THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA
Respectfully report that they have examined the matter and that in their opinion this bill
has been recommended to the Council favorably.
Sean Coleman
Chairman
historic preservation commission
of south bend and st. joseph county
ROOM 1123 COUNTY CITY BUQ.DiNG
south bend, indiena 46601 (219) 235-9798
Common Council of the City of South Bend
C/O Ms. Loretta Duda, Clerk of the City of South Bend
4th Floor County -City Building
South Bend, Indiana 46601
July 29, 1996
Honorable Council Members,
Attached please find the proposed amendment to the City of South Bend's Zoning
Ordinance. The purpose of the amendment is to designate the property located
at Leeper Park as a Local Historic Landmark.
At its June 17, 1996 meeting, the Historic Preservation Commission of South
Bend and St. Joseph County moved to send to the Common Council a favorable
recommendation to designate the above mentioned property, commonly known as
Leeper Park, as a Local Historic Landmark.
Also attached is a statement of Architectural and Historical Significance
prepared by commission staff. Mr. Talley of the HPC has prepared a lengthy
document tracing the development of the park to supplement this
recommendation. This document will be provided to council members on the
occasion of the public hearing on this matter. We would appreciate your
favorable consideration of this matter.
Yours truly,
V�0"
David B. Duvall, Director
cc: John Oxian - President, HPC
Phil St.Clair - Dept. of Parks & Recreation
Filed In Clerk's Office
J U L 30 1996
LORETTA J. DUDA
CITY CLERK, So. BEND, IN.
Report to the Common Council
Including
Historical and Architectural Significance
PROPOSED LOCAL LANDMARK DESIGNATION
LEEPER PARK
Historic Preservation Commission
of
South Bend, Indiana
Julv, 1996
Filed In Clerk's Office
J U L 3 0 1996
LORETTA J. DUDA
CITY CLERK, SO. BEND, RJ.
p�
sr R yER
✓OSEPq
LEEPER PPRK ® •"'I i
Br mw LMPER
— __T
0
J WKY_ +
V,
LOCATION MAP
e � AR
NLp$OH
LEEPER PARK
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
As early as 1889, Alexis Coquillard proposed to conditionally donate land at
the bend of the St. Joseph River to the City of South Bend for the purpose of
establishing a public park. The parcel proposed later became Howard Park. At
the time of the Common Council consideration of this donation, the South Bend
Tribune editorialized that the best and most appropriate park land in the city
was at its north end near Chapin Park. In 1895, the city purchased a large
parcel on the east side of Michigan Street for the establishment of the Water
Works, capping artesian wells there located and rendering the land usable for
recreation. By 1900 the area around the Water Works had become referred to as
Leeper Park, The following year, extensive plans and site development were
undertaken. The zoo and lily pond were constructed in 1902. In 1904 the log
cabin was'moved into the park from 123 West Northshore Drive. This building
was rehabilitated and established as the "Pierre Navarre Cabin" (a designated
Local Landmark) although this attribution is questionable. The cabin was
relocated again within the park in 1916.
In 1905 additional lands were acquired between Michigan Lafayette Streets and
tennis courts there developed, and the following year acreage was added
completing the west end of the park. The following year, the wooden bridge
connecting to the island in the St. Joseph River was washed away in flooding
and replaced with a new structure of iron and concrete. By this time the zoo
located at the east end of the park boasted 132 animals of 50 varieties and
the pond in the middle section of the park was stocked with ducks and geese.
In 1911, the Park Board engaged George Kessler of St. Louis for the
development of masterplanning for the City's park -boulevard system. Mr.
Kessler continued to provide design services for many years thereafter. The
present North Pumping Station (a designated Local Landmark) and its reservoir
were constructed in 1912. The present Michigan Street Bridge was constructed
in 1915 as part of the Park -Boulevard plan proposed by George Kessler. During
the Great Depression extensive work was done in the park funded by the Works
Progress Administration (WPA) including the reconstruction of the retaining
walls around the island which utilized salvage material from the earlier
bridge.
ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION
The area encompasses approximately five city blocks at the bend of the St.
Joseph River which established the northern geographical edge of the 19th
century urban area and includes two established ,Local Landmarks within its
boundaries, the Navarre Cabin and the North Pumping Station. Additional
structures of historical interest include the remote Colonial Revival style
pump houses, the reservoir at the east end, the island in the St Joseph River
with its foot bridge and retaining walls, and the duck pond. Other historical
features include the formal flower gardens in the eastern section of the park
which were established in 1922.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the HPC Local Landmarks Criteria, the site at Leeper Park has been
recommended by the Historic Preservation Commission as a Local Historic
Landmark. The site meets the criteria in at least four areas.
1.) Its character, interest, or value as part of the development,heritage, or
culture of the City of South Bend, St. Joseph County, the State if
Indiana, or the United States of America.
2.) Its embodiment of elements of architectural design, detail, materials, or
craftsmanship which represents an architectural characteristic or
innovation.
3.) Its educational value.
4.) Its suitability for preservation.
The site fulfills criteria #1 as material evidence of South Bend's development
of civic institutions and infrastructure developed for use and enjoyment by
the general public with the purpose of improving the general health and well
being of the rapidly growing community.
The site fulfills criteria #2 as an example of trends in late 19th century
and early 20th century park and boulevard planning. The several historical
sites and structures in the park such as the reservoir, the duck pond, and the
foot bridge are not rated at this time in the Indiana Historic Sites and
Structures Survey as the survey has not yet addressed man-made landscape
features of this type. Miscellaneous buildings in the park which are not
individually landmarked and which are rated as contributing include the
Colonial Revival pumping stations.
The site fulfills criteria #3 as an example of turn of the century suburban
park planning. The area also represents the integration of recreational space
with utilitarian development and the development of modern notions of public
health and hygiene.
The site meets criteria #4 by the integrity and profuse archaeological
evidence of its features, development and construction with limited
alterations and deterioration.
DBD
7/29/96
Note: Statements written in this style of tort are notes to used in completing the
Standards and Criteria. This te_vt has been set rip so that it can be typed over while still
remaining in the document. In order to keep the text from not printing, please do the
following. Co into the File menu; select Print command, press Options button; in the
Options dialog box under Include with Document find the option Hidden text, click the
box to clear the option.
9.0 LANDSCAPES - SPECIFIC STANDARDS AND CRITERIA
(Landscape Name)
(Landscape Address)
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 the (Landscape name) including its spatial
organization, topography, vegetation, circulation and features.
3. The standards and criteria acknowledge that there will be changes to the
landscape and are intended to make the changes sensitive to the historic
character of the landscape.
4. Each property will be separately studied to determine if a later addition(s)
and/or alteration(s) can, or should, be removed.
5. Since it is not possible to proNide 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 the 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 communit% 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 pemtanent or even semi-permanent (seasonal) structures or
facilities shall not be permitted.
10. The Boston Landmarks Commission recommends that the work proposed
to the landscape be executed with the guidance of a landscape professional
with expertise with historic landscapes.
11. The (list what is under review.) are subject to the terms of the landscape
guidelines herein stated.
12. Items under Cotnmission 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 (List the Spatial Organizational features of the landscape that need
to be preserved, such as: views, vistas, landscape spaces, etc) shall be
preserved.
3. Original or later contributing spatial 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 sante ntateral is not technically or economically feasible, then
compatible substitute materials may be considered.
8. Important visual connel.ions between spaces within the landscape shall be
retained by maintainin_ vegetation, circulation and topography features
which contribute to the:: visual relationships.
9. The historic spatial and functional relationship of circulation systems,
water features and structures shall be preserved by maintaining the
massing of adjacent vegetation, vistas, or other associated features.
10. Maintenance of. removal of. and additions of vegetation materials and
features should consider maintaining existing or intended vistas and
spaces, screening intrusions. creating new spaces where appropriate and
maintaining defined areas of shade and sun.
11. The form and shape of individual spaces and their associated vertical
elements shall be retained in order to preserve the historic relationships of
the landscape. Examples include the relationship between open fields and
hedgerows or the width and length of an allee.
12. Moving or demolishing historic structures that would alter spatial and
visual relationships in the landscape shall not be allowed.
13. Construction of new structures that would alter historic spatial and visual
relationships in the landscape shall not be allowed.
14. Intrusive views or new construction may be screened with compatible
fencing or plant material so long as the screening would detract from the
historic character of the landscape.
(List am additional items such as: New construction in the Young Meadow
shall not he allowed)
9.3 Topography
(includes the Shape, Slope, Elevation, Contour of Landforms and Ground
Plane, etc.)
Refer to Sections 9.2, 9.4. 9.5, 9.6, 9.7, 9.8, 9.9 and 9.10 for additional
Standards and Criteria that may apply.
1. All (List the Topographical futures (!f the landscape that need to be
preserved, such as: shape, slope, elevation, landform contours, etc.) 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 reco_nized soil management
practices.
3. Alteration of existing or addition of new topographical features will be
considered if they do not alter the basic concept of the historic landscape
design.
4. Natural features (e.g. rock outcroppings) which are integrated into the
landscape shall be treated as part of the overall design and shall be
retained.
5. Deteriorated or missing topographical features shall be replaced with
materials that match the original in form, shape, color and texture.
6. When replacement of materials or features is necessan . it should be based
on physical or documentary evidence.
7. If using the same material is not technically or economically feasible, then
compatible substitute materials may be considered.
8. Wherever appropriate, plant materials rather than structural materials
should be used to solve erosion problems.
(List any additional items such as: Repair of the Dray Cliffs is encouraged.)
9.4 Vegetation
(includes Trees, Shrubs, Ground
Planting Beds, etc.)
Covers, Hedges, Allees, Fields, Forests,
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. All (List the Vegetation materials and features of the landscape that
need to be preserved, such as: trees, shrubs, ground cover, hedges,
allees, fields, forests, etc.) shall be preserved.
2. Original or later contributing vegetation materials and features shall be
retained in their existing confizuration and shall be maintained through
proper horticultural management practices.
3. Alteration of existing or addition of new vegetation materials and features
will be considered if they do not alter the basic concept of the historic
landscape design.
4. Deteriorated or missing vegetation materials and features shall be replaced
with materials that match the original in size, shape, coke, forst 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 healthy vegetation material shall be retained unless it is part of a
later non -compatible design or is volunteer vegetation inconsistent with
the original design.
8. Consideration for removal of existing healthy vegetation materials and
features will be given when it is in conflict with the original design intent
of the landscape, such as when an important vista has become overgrown
or when plants have grown out of scale with their intended purpose.
9. Maintenance of, removal of, and additions of vegetation materials and
features should consider maintaining existing or intended vistas and
spaces, screening intrusions, creating new spaces where appropriate and
maintaining defined areas of shade and sun.
10. Invasive vegetation shall be removed whenever technically feasible and
shall be replaced with appropriate vegetation consistent -,lith 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 N'611 assure 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.
(List any additional items such as: Future plantings shall be guided by the
original design for the mall, as modified by Shurdeff.)
9.5 Circulation
(includes Roads, Paths, Parkways, Drives, Trails, Walks, etc.)
Refer to Sections 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 9.6, 9.8, 9.9 and 9.10 for additional
Standards and Criteria that may apply.
1. All (List tire Circulation layout, materials and features of the landscape
that need to be preserved, such as: roads, paths, parkways, drives, trails,
walks, brick sidewalks, granite curbing, stone dust paths, etc) shall be
preserved.
2. Original or later contributing layouts of walks, roads and paved areas shall
be retained and maintained.
3. Alteration of existing or addition of new circulation layouts will be
considered if it can be shown that better site circulation is necessary and
that the alteration does not alter the basic concept of the historic landscape
design.
4. When replacement of circulation layouts is necessary, it should be based
on physical or documentary evidence.
5. Original or later contributing circulation materials and features shall be
retained and, if necessary, repaired by patching, piecing -in or reinforcing
the material or feature using recognized preservation methods.
6. Deteriorated or missing circulation materials and features shall be replaced
with materials that match the original in size, shape, color, profile, form,
texture and detail of installation.
7. If using 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.
1 l . Consideration for removal of existing circulation systems and features \%ill
be given when it is in conflict with the original design intent of the
landscape or when they are no longer appropriate to their intended
purpose.
(List any additional items such as: No motor vehicles of any kind, except
maintenance vehicles approved by the Department of Parks and Recreation,
shall be permitted on any part of the Mall at any time.)
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. All (List the Water Features of the landscape that need to be preserved,
such as: fountains, pools, irrigation systems, ponds, rivers, etc.) shall be
preserved.
2. Original or later contributing water features shall be retained and
maintained.
3. Existing water courses or bodies should not be altered. Consideration dill
be given to proposals that improve site drainage, improve water quality,
enhance the landscape design or improve wildlife habitat.
4. Alteration of existing or addition of new water features will be considered
if the alteration does not alter the basic concept of the historic landscape
design.
5. When replacement of water features and their materials are necessary. it
should be based on physical or documentary evidence.
6. Original or later contributing water feature materials shall be retained and,
if necessary, repaired by patching, piecing -in, consolidating or reinforcing
the material using recognized preservation methods.
7. Deteriorated or missing water feature materials shall be replaced with
materials that match the original in size, shape, color, profile, form. texture
and detail of installation.
8. If using the same material is not technically or economically feasible, then
compatible substitute materials may be considered.
9. Alteration of existing or addition of new water feature materials Neill be
considered if they do not alter the basic concept of the historic landscape
design.
10. When appropriate from an ecological perspective, dredging of waterways
shall be permitted as a means of retaining historic waterways.
11. All wetlands shall be preserved.
12. All shorelines of water courses or bodies shall be protected from erosion in
a manner in keeping with the basic concept of the landscape design.
13. Consideration for removal of existing water features will be given when it
is in conflict with the original design intent of the landscape or when they
are no longer appropriate to their intended purpose.
(List any additional items such as: New storm drains should not be added
until an accurate survey has been taken of the existing condition of the
storm drainage system and the ability of the existing lines to handle
additional water.)
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 (List the Furnishings and Objects materials, elements, details and
features of the landscape that need to be preserved, such as: benches,
lights, signs, drinking fountains, trash receptacles, fences, tree grates,
flagpoles, sculptures, monuments, planters, urns, etc.) shall be preserved.
2. Original or later contributing furnishings and objects materials, elements,
features and details shall be retained and, if necessary, repaired by
patching, splicing, consolidatin_ or other\\ise reinforcing using recognized
preservation methods. .
3. Deteriorated or missing fumishings and objects materials, elements,
features and details shall be rep:aced with materials that match the original
in material, size, shape, color. profile. form, texture, configuration and
detail of installation.
4. Alteration of existing or addition of ne\\ furnishings and objects will be
considered if the alteration does not alter the basic concept of the historic
landscape design.
5. When replacement of furnishings and objects and their materials are
necessary, it should be based on physical or documentary evidence.
6. If using the same material is not technically or economically feasible, then
compatible substitute materials may be considered.
7. Existing memorials, statues, monuments and fountains shall be carefully
preserved and restored where necessary, maintaining the integrity of the
original material°and'design. This work shall be coordinated with the
Boston Art Commission.
8. New furnishings and objects should be designed using vandal resistant
standards.
9. Location of signs shall be guided by a master plan.
10. Signs shall conform to a simple sign system.
11. Existing non -conforming signs should be removed.
(List any additional items such as: All new monuments and fountains shall
be located on the central path)
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, C 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. All (List the structures, elements and materials that need to be
preserved, such as: walls, terraces, arbors, gazebos, follies, playground
equipment, picnic shelters, plazas, greenhouses, steps, bridges, dams,
buildings, etc.) shall be preserved.
3. Original or later contributing structures, materials, elements, details and
ornamentation shall be retained and, if necessary, repaired using
recognized preservation methods.
4. Deteriorated or missing structures, materials, elements, details and
ornamentation shall be replaced with material and elements which match
the original in material, color, texture, size, shape, profile and detail of
installation.
5. When replacement is necessary, it should be based on physical or
documentary evidence.
6. If using the same material is not technically or economically feasible, then
compatible substitute materials may be considered.
7. New additions/alterations to the landscape (such as: parking lots, comfort
stations, buildings, etc.) shall be as unobtrusive as possible and preserve
any original or later contributing landscape features.
8. Removal of non -historic structures from the existing landscape is
encouraged.
9. Structures shall be protected from arson and other acts of vandalism
through proper monitoring procedures and methods such as; permanent
installation of smoke detectors, alarms, or other security systems, or
temporarily boarding up windows and openings.
(List any additional items such as: No buildings of any type shall be erected
on the mall. Refer to the Exteriors - Specific Standards and Criteria for
additional Standards and Criteria that may apply. Individual structures
should be listed with accomparrtdng Standards and Criteria.)
9.9 Archeology
Refer to Sections 9.11 B, C, and D regarding treatment of materials.
Refer to Sections 93, 9.4, 9.5, 9.6, 9.7 and 9.8 for additional Standards
and Criteria that may apply.
I. The landscape should be surve%ed for potential archeological sites prior to
the beginning of any construction project.
2. Known Archeological site(s) shall be protected during am' construction
project.
3. Disturbance of the terrain within the landscape shall b, kept to a minimum
so as not to disturb any unknown archeological materials
4. All planning, any necessary site investigation. or data recovery shall be
conducted by a professional archeologist.
(List any additional items such as: Aew construction in the park area in
front of the building shall not disturb the ground below jour feet in order to
protect known archeological sites.)
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 identih- and implement
accessibility modifications that dill 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 commission will review
proposals on a case by case bases. The commission recommends
consulting with the following document which is available from the
commission office:
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Senice, 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 Boston Landmarks Commission recommends that work proposed to the
materials outlined in sections B, C and D be executed with the guidance of a
professional building materials conservator.
(List any specific comments such as: The removal of the exhaust fans at the
grade level on India Street is encouraged.)
B. Masonry (Brick, Stone, Terra Cotta, Concrete, Stucco and Mortar)
1. All (List the masonry materials, features, details and ornamentation of
the building that need to be preserved, such as; granite, brownstone, etc.
brick cornices and door pediments, stone window architrave, terra colla
brackets, railings, etc Also include masonry surfaces that need to be
preserved, such as, surface modeling, tooling, bonding patterns, joint
sizes, color, etc.) shall be preserved.
2. Original or later contributing masonry materials, features, details, surfaces
and ornamentation shall be retained and, if necessary, repaired by
patching, piecing -in, or consolidating the masonry using recognized
preservation methods.
3. Deteriorated or missing masonrc materials, features, details, surfaces and
ornamentation shall be replaced with material and elements which match
the original in material, color, texture, size, shape, profile and detail of
installation.
4. When replacement of materials or elements is necessary, it should be
based on physical or documentary evidence.
5. If using the same material is not technically or economically feasible, then
compatible substitute materials may be considered.
6. Original mortar shall be retained.
7. Deteriorated mortar shall be carefully removed by hand -raking the joints.
8. Use of mechanical saws and hammers shall not be allowed.
9. Repointing mortar shall duplicate the original mortar in strength,
composition. color, texture. joint size, joint profile and method of
application.
10. Sample panels of raking the joints and repointing shall be reviewed and
approved by the staff of the Boston Landmarks Commission.
1 1. Cleaning of masonry is discouraged and should be performed only when
necessary to halt deterioration.
12. If the building is to be cleaned. the mildest method possible shall be
used.
13. A test patch of the cleaning method(s) shall be reviewed and approved on
site by staff of the Boston Landmarks Commission. Test patches should
always be carried out well in advance of cleaning (including exposure to
all seasons if possible).
14. Sandblasting (wet or dry), wire brushing, or other similar abrasive
cleaning methods shall not be permitted. Doing so changes the visual
quality of the material and accelerates deterioration.
15. Waterproofing or water repellents are strongly discouraged. These
treatments are generally not effective in preserving masonry and can cause
permanent damage. The Commission does recognize that in extraordinary
circumstances their use may be required to solve a specific problem.
Samples of any proposed treatment shall be reviewed by the Commission
before application.
16. In general, painting masonry surfaces shall not be allowed. Painting
masonry surfaces will be considered only when there is documentary
evidence that this treatment was used at some point in the history of the
property.
C. Wood
1. All (List the wood surfaces, features, details and ornamentation of the
building that need to be preserved, such as: clapboards, cornices,
brackets, entablatures, shutters, columns, balustrades, shingles, etc
Also include paint colors and finishes.) shall be preserved.
2. Original or later contributing wood surfaces, features, details and
ornamentation shall be retained and, if necessary, repaired by patching,
piecing -in, consolidating or reinforcing the wood using recognized
preservation methods.
3. Deteriorated or missing wood surfaces, features, details and ornamentation
shall be replaced with material and elements which match the original in
material, color, texture, size, shape, profile and detail of installation.
4. When replacement of materials or elements is necessary, it should be
based on physical or documentary evidence.
5. If using the same material is not technically or economicalh• feasible, then
compatible substitute materials may be considered.
6. Cleaning of wooden elements shall use the mildest method possible.
7. Paint removal should be considered oniv where there is paint surface
deterioration and as part of an overall maintenance program which
involves repainting or applying other appropriate protective coatings.
Coatings such as paint help protect the wood from moisture and ultraviolet
light and stripping the wood bare will expose the surface to the effects of
weathering.
8. Damaged or deteriorated paint should be removed to the next sound layer
using the mildest method possible.
9. Propane or butane torches, sandblasting, water blasting or other
abrasive cleaning and/or paint removal methods shall not be
permitted. Doing so changes the visual quality of the wood and
accelerates deterioration.
10. Repainting should be based on paint seriation studies. If an adequate
record does not exist repainting shall be done with colors that are
appropriate to the style and period of the building.
D. Architectural Metals (Cast Iron, Steel, Pressed Tin, Copper, Aluminum
and Zinc)
All (List the metal materials, features, details and ornamentation of the
building that need to be preserved, such as: cast iron facades, pore/res
and steps; sheet metal cornices, roofs, roof cresting and storefronts, and
cast or rolled metal doors, window sash, entablatures, and hardware etc.
Also include paint colors and finishes.) shall be preserved.
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 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 Boston Landmarks Commission. Test patches should
always be carried out well in advance of cleaning (including exposure to
all seasons if possible).
9. Cleaning to remove corrosion and paint removal should be considered
only where there is deterioration and as part of an overall maintenance
program which involves repainting or applying other appropriate
protective coatings. Paint or other coatings help retard the corrosion rate
of the metal. Leaving the metal bare will expose the surface to accelerated
corrosion. °
10. Repainting should be based on paint seriation studies. If an adequate
record does not exist repainting shall be done with colors that are
appropriate to the style and period of the building.
The Landscapes - Specific Standards and Criteria has been 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.
The U.S. Department of the Interior prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color. national origin, age, gender, or
handicap in its federally assisted programs. If you believe you have been discriminated against in any program, activity
or facility as described above, or if you desire further information, please write to: Office for Equal Opportunity, 1849
C Street NW, Room 1324, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 20240.
AREA
PLAN
COMMISSION of
ST. JOSEPH COUNTY, IN
RICHARD S.
JOHNSON
Executive Director
ROBERT W. SANTE Assistant Director
1140 COUNTY -CITY BUILDING, SOUTH BEND, IN. 46601
August 20, 1996
Ms. Loretta Duda, City Clerk
4th Floor, County -City Building
South Bend, Indiana 46601
RE: Leeper Park
Dear Ms. Duda:
(219) 235-9571 FAX (219)
The Staff of the Area Plan Commission has reviewed the Historic Preservation Commission's
proposed designation of the above property as an historic landmark with respect to the
relationship of said propertyy to any capital improvements proposed for nearby rights-of-way,
easements or properties. We find no proposed improvements that will conflict with this
designation.
Sincerely, / /
Mellil � !ll9
mes Voll
Planner
Flied In Clerk's Office
AUG 2 1 1.996
Loll -t J. IiE1DA
CRy CLENK, 40. BEND. W.
Serving: South Bend, Lakeville, New Carlisle, North Liberty, Roseland and St. Joseph County,
I move to establish the following deadlines and hearing date on the appeal of the denial of a Certificate of
Appropriateness, COA#2020-0302 in an appeal entitled Northern Indiana Historical Society Inc. v. South
Bend Historic Preservation Commission.
• Monday August 24, 2020 be established as the deadline for submission by the Historic
Preservation Commission to file a certified copy of the minutes, transcript, if any, and all
documents of record regarding action taken by the staff and Commission on COA Application
#2020-0302.
• Monday August 31, 2020 be established as the deadline for receipt by the City Clerk's Office of
any submission by the Petitioners or their attorney of Evidentiary and Administrative Record and
Position Statement which shall include an introduction, standard of review, issue(s), facts,
argument or contentions, and any exhibits. This submission must be made to the Office of the
City Clerk and opposing counsel representing the Historic Preservation Commission.
• Monday September 7, 2020 be established as the deadline for receipt by the City Clerk's Office
of any submission by the Historic Preservation Commission or by the legal counsel representing
the Commission of the Evidentiary and Administrative Record and Position Statement which
shall include an introduction, standard of review, issue(s), facts, argument or contentions, and any
exhibits. This submission must be made to the Office of the City Clerk and Petitioners or
opposing counsel representing the Petitioners.
Monday September 14, 2020 is the date on which the South Bend Common Council at its regular 7:00
p.m. meeting, under agenda Item "Unfinished Business" shall hear the appeal involving COA Application
#2020-0302 in an appeal entitled Northern Indiana Historical Society Inc. v. South Bend Historic
Preservation Commission .which shall be conducted pursuant to a two page document entitled Procedures
Governing Appeals of Historic Preservation Commission to the Common Council, on file with the Office
of the City Clerk and sent by that Office to all parties of record.
Notice of Appeal
Northern Indiana Historical Society Inc.
d.b.a The History Museum
808 West Washington Street
South Bend, Indiana 46601
V.
City of South Bend
Historic Preservation Commission
227 West Jefferson Blvd.
Suite 14005
South Bend, Indiana 46601
Notice of Appeal COA#2020-0302
Filed in Clerk's 4tf'ics
r._. 1-001—n
JUL 0 7 2020
We wish to appeal the denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness petition number
COA#2020-0302. Our appeal is in the interest of relocating the Navarre Cabin, which is now in
its 4th location due to neighborhood development and the expansion of the North Pumping
Station. Its new permanent site on the museum's campus will provide improved preservation
and security for the cabin, increased safety for visitors, and expanded educational outreach and
benefit to the public.
Date: 7-7-2020 Brian D. Harding, Interim Executive Director
The History Museum
91
CaITY OF SOUTH BEND
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
The History Museum
808 West Washington Street
South Bend, IN 46601
Dear Mr. Harding, Ms. Erickson, et al --
June 16, 2020
Filed in Clerk's Office
JUL o 7 2020
The Commissioners, at the regularly scheduled monthly Historic Preservation Commission meeting on June
15, 2020 denied approval of Certificate of Appropriateness application #2020-0302, which included the
following application items:
"Cabin to be relocated to the museum's west campus as part of a larger interpretive site. See
attached plan for details.
In making its determination, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the appropriateness of the
proposed construction, reconstruction, or alteration to the preservation of the historic
landmark, specifically, and/or the Historic Preservation District, generally; the detriment to the public
welfare if the proposed construction, reconstruction, or alteration were permitted even though it is not
deemed appropriate; and the potential hardship that the denial of a certificate of appropriateness would
cause the applicant.
Following is the record from the meeting concerning your project stating why your application was denied:
Commissioner Deegan made a motion to deny COA#2020-0302. Seconded by
Commissioner Ponder.
Four in favor, two opposed.
Vote: 4 — 2. Motion to deny COA #2020-0302 is passed.
Commission President Gelfman clarified that, in motions for denial, Commissioners are
required to state their reasons for denial. Roll was called.
MICHELE GELFMAN A CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELICIA FEASEL
PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ADMINISTRATOR
EXCELLENCE ACCOUNTABILITY', INNOVATION INCLUSION EMPOWERMENT
1400S County -City Building 227 W. Jefferson Blvd. South Bend, Indiana 46601 p574.235.9371 f574.235.9201 southbendin.gov
CITY OF SOUTH BEND 1 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Commissioner Tiffany (NAY):
Commissioner Statheim (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 Ponder (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.
Pursuant to South Bend Municipal Code Section 21-13-02(e)(5)(B), an applicant may appeal a denial of a
Certificate of Appropriateness by the Historic Preservation Commission to the Common Council, which shall
make a final determination of the application.
The. Historic Preservation Commission remains committed to preserving the built environment of the City of
South Bend and unincorporated St. Joseph County.
Please contact this office for assistance, questions, or concerns.
Sincerely,
a
Elicia Feasel
Historic Preservation Administrator
efeasel(&southbendin.aov
CC Aaron Perri, Venues Parks and Art
Chuck Bulot, Building Department, City of South Bend
Tim Lykowski
Page 12
Adam Toering
Historic Preservation Specialist
atoerinoCDsouthbendin.aov