Laserfiche WebLink
5. <br />b <br />R -66• <br />meeti <br />forma <br />and A <br />under <br />To pr <br />of th <br />on a <br />Inc., <br />servi <br />BUSINESS (Cont'd <br />Extra Inspection Costs for Site Improvements, <br />This was previously discussed in Commission <br />gs of March 5 and 19 and tabled for further in- <br />ion. This is in reference to Clyde E. Williams <br />sociates, Inc. contract dated 5 December, 1969, <br />Construction Phase 4.C, relative to supervision. <br />vide a full -time resident inspector for supervision <br />first phase of site improvement construction, based <br />eriod of six months, Clyde E. Williams & Associates, <br />in their letter of March 31, quote a fee for this <br />e not to exceed $21,000. <br />The Commission was of the opinion it may be better to <br />hire a staff member which would be less expensive and <br />the p rsonnel could be used for other duties. Addi- <br />tional personnel, if needed, can be hired out of the <br />conti gency fund. <br />The Clair requested this be held in abeyance and the <br />staff explore the details. <br />6. NEW BUSINESS <br />a. <br />Signs: <br />Depart <br />uate t <br />The sr <br />R -56 H <br />The si <br />Type B <br />are fr <br />be dep <br />as to <br />tingen <br />that t <br />was pa <br />INSPECTION COSTS FOR <br />SITE IMPROVEMENTS, <br />R -66, TABLED <br />The South Bend Supply Co. and McCaffery Co. THE SOUTH BEND SUPPLY <br />The members of the Sign Committee met in the CO. AND MCCAFFERY CO. <br />nent of Redevelopment on March 26, 1971 to eval SIGNS, TYPE A APPROVED, <br />ie two sign proposals submitted by the two firms. R -56 <br />�cifications for signs as applicable to Project <br />are discussed, which are: <br />"The location, size and construction of <br />signs must be in keeping with the charac- <br />ter of the area, except that billboards, <br />free standing or lighted signs are ex- <br />pressly prohibited." <br />In marked Type A is approximately 29 feet high, <br />is 3 feet high. As the two signs suggested <br />�e standing and lighted, their acceptance would <br />?ndent upon action of the Redevelopment Commission, <br />whether they would waive the specifications. Con - <br />t on this, Mr. West moved, seconded by Mr. Kagel, <br />ie sign marked Type A.be accepted, and said motion <br />;sed. Type B was considered too small. <br />With t ese recommendations, Mr. Wiggins moved Design A <br />be ado ted, without precedent by reason of waiver, se- <br />conded by Mr. Chenney and unanimously carried. <br />b. Demolition Contract No. 10: Advertisement for DEMOLITION CONTRACT <br />the demolition of streets, curbs and sidewalks, for the NO. 10 AWARDED, CENTRAL <br />Central Downtown Urban Renewal Project, R -66, appeared DORNTOWN'URBAN RENEWAL <br />in The South Bend Tribune on March 8 and 15; Tri- County PROJECT, R -66 <br />-5- <br />