My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SM 01-19-90
sbend
>
Public
>
Redevelopment Commission
>
Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1990
>
SM 01-19-90
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/2/2012 4:50:49 PM
Creation date
10/4/2012 2:41:14 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
South Bend <br />Special Me <br />3. <br />elcpment Comanission <br />- January 19, 1990 <br />(Cont.) <br />Comniss'on to state its objection to the <br />system. Mr. Nimtz responded that there have <br />been questions raised about the long term <br />durability of the material in this climate. <br />Mrs. Ko <br />ata noted that the Commission's <br />comments <br />about Dryvit were directed <br />particularly <br />toward the proposed use before <br />the CcnmLission <br />at the time and that it was <br />not an appropriate <br />material for two reasons: <br />1) the location <br />across from Century Center <br />and the <br />Marriott Hotel and the architecture <br />of the proposed <br />hotel as well as the use of <br />Dryvit, <br />and 2) the long term durability of <br />the system. <br />Its use has come before the <br />Design Review <br />Committee for several projects <br />over th <br />last couple of years and has been <br />approved, <br />but we did not feel it was <br />appropriate <br />for this particular hotel. Also, <br />because <br />the issue has been coming up more <br />frequently, <br />we asked the Design Review <br />Committee <br />to come up with some guidelines on <br />its use. <br />The staff recommendation to the <br />Design Review <br />Committee was that they rule <br />the material <br />inappropriate for use in new <br />construct <br />ion. The Design Review Ca mittee <br />decided <br />that they wanted to review it on a <br />case by <br />case basis and would not prohibit it. <br />Mrs. Kolata also noted, in response to Mr. <br />Forsey's question about what the Commission's <br />objecticns were to the material, that as a <br />ground level material, would it withstand the <br />abuse it might receive. <br />Mrs. Kol to invited Mr. Forsey to make a <br />presentation to the Commission regarding the <br />synthetci plaster system. <br />Mr. ForsBy noted that the material was <br />developel in Germany thirty years ago and has <br />a thirty year track record in a climate <br />similar to ours. Mr. Forsey has been using <br />Dryvit f Dir twenty years in this area. It is <br />a strong material and more durable than brick <br />in many respects. It is lighter weight, more <br />cost efficient, and more energy efficient <br />than brick. Because of its lower cost and <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.