My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
August 1992
sbend
>
Public
>
Historic Preservation
>
Meeting Minutes
>
HPC Meeting Minutes 1992
>
August 1992
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/11/2019 1:16:25 PM
Creation date
6/8/2020 10:07:36 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
South Bend HPC
HPC Document Type
Minutes
BOLT Control Number
1001404
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
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
stipulation that the roof be covered appropriately. Mr. Eide <br />seconded the motion. Approved unanimously. <br />Proposal #2: Replace front door (door with 3/4 light and <br />leaded - glass). Mr. Pastor described existing door as "not <br />original" and showed examples of proposed replacement <br />(brochure). <br />Mrs. Sporleder moved to approve the proposal as submitted. Mr. <br />Eide seconded the motion. Approved unanimously. <br />Proposal #3: (a) Install lamp on east side of front entry door; <br />(b) remove existing lamp on west side and replace with louvered <br />wood door. Mr. Pastor described "part a" of proposal #3. <br />Mr. Eide asked to assess #3 as a whole and inquired of the <br />applicants their rationale for the louvered door. Mrs. Treat <br />responded that it was intended to protect the door from <br />vandalism. Mrs. Sporleder suggested a framed - Lucite door would <br />provide protection, would be more attractive and would reveal <br />the decorative inner door. <br />The commissioners discussed the materials to be used and <br />possible alternatives. Mr. Pastor mentioned the appropriate <br />standard and asked that it be followed, ie: a more <br />historically- correct solution would be a screen or storm door <br />with lights on either side of the doorway. <br />Mrs. Treat reiterated her security concerns. Mr. Oxian <br />recommended that the door be allowed specifically to address <br />the security problem; future changes to the door would have to <br />return the door to a historically appropriate state, ie: a <br />storm or screen door with lights flanking the door. <br />Mr. Eide moved to approve the proposal with the proviso that <br />Mr. Oxian's recommendation be included, ie: the proposal be <br />allowed in this case only for security reasons. future changes, <br />if any. must return door to a historically appropriate state. <br />Mrs. Sporleder seconded the motion. Approved unanimously. <br />Proposal #4: Install stairway along rear facade to access <br />existing second -story entry. Mr. Pastor described the proposal <br />and recommended against it because district standards <br />disallowed changes to facades; he also mentioned that similar <br />stairs had been allowed in the district previously and, in <br />addition, these would not be seen from the street. <br />Discussion ensued relative to fire regulations. Staff inquiries <br />showed that apartments must have two entries. Mrs. Treat <br />explained her needs: the apartment must be separated from the <br />business below. <br />Mrs. Sporleder questioned the proposed stairs in relation to <br />the windows behind them. Mr. Eide stated that the submitted <br />K <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.