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
drawings did not provide adequate information with which to <br />make a decision and that the stairs must be detachable in the <br />future, causing little or no damage to the historic facade; the <br />submitted drawings did not show that. He requested a more <br />detailed drawing showing the railing /bannister in particular. <br />Mrs. Treat requested suggestions as to what would be <br />appropriate. Mrs. Sporleder suggests modeling the design after <br />the front porch if it meets the appropriate codes. Mr. Bide <br />reiterated the need for more detailed plans. <br />Mr. Treat explained that the project contractor had described <br />the proposal as not modifying the existing facade in any way <br />and that it could be removed. <br />Mr. Bide moved to approve the proposal pending staff review of <br />final details. Mrs. Sporleder seconded the motion. <br />Mr. Bide suggested that an appropriate plan should be built in <br />scale to match the house. <br />Motion passed. Mr. Bide. Mrs. Sporleder. Ms. Van Dalsen voted <br />favorably on the motion. Mr. Oxian abstained. <br />Proposal #5: Replace missing front porch support; install <br />pilasters from top of porch rail to entablature along wall. <br />Mr. Pastor described the proposal. <br />Mrs. Sporleder inquired as to which support was "missing"; when <br />told, she related that this feature probably never existed. Mr. <br />Bide and Mr. Oxian concurred that it would be neither <br />historically appropriate nor structurally needed. <br />Mr. Bide requested an explanation of the location of the <br />pilasters. Mrs. Treat provided the same. Mrs. Sporleder <br />suggested that they would be inappropriate; the Treat's <br />proposal to enclose the columns, however, would be <br />appropriate. <br />The Treats agreed with the suggestions of the commission, ie: <br />the "missing" column was not needed, nor were the pilasters. <br />Mrs. Sporleder moved to-approve the portion of the proposal <br />that included enclosing the columns and adding molded caps. <br />etc. Mr. Bide seconded the motion. Approved unanimously. <br />Proposal #6: Enclose metal column at rear porch same as item <br />#5. Mr. Pastor described the proposal. <br />Mrs. Sporleder moved to approve the proposal as submitted. Mr. <br />Bide seconded the motion. Approved unanimously. <br />Proposal #7: Signage: front yard as per submitted drawing. Mr. <br />Pastor described the proposal. He reported that, from the <br />3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.