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
the past appearance of the property found in <br />photographs, drawings, and newspapers. New site work <br />should also be appropriate to existing surrounding site <br />elements in scale, type, and appearance. <br />3) Prohibited <br />No changes may be made to the appearance of the site by <br />removing old plants, trees, fencing, walkways, <br />outbuildings, and other elements before evaluating their <br />importance to the property's history and development. <br />RECOMMENDATIONS <br />The proposal as submitted is in keeping with most of the <br />standards cited above. However, the submitted design does not <br />completely conform with standard I.A(2), specifically that <br />portion that refers to the riverbank; the submitted design <br />proposes a deck that will obscure a portion of the riverbank <br />corresponding with the property at 517 Edgewater Drive. <br />Some similar structures that currently exist in the district <br />obscure the riverbank; there are also structures that work more <br />with - contour, topography of the riverbank. <br />Similarly, the submitted design does not conform with standard <br />I.B(2), which recommends that all new site work "be appropriate <br />to existing surrounding site elements in scale, type, and <br />appearance." The proposal does not appear to relate to the <br />existing dock /boatlaunch; its height is out of scale with the <br />existing. <br />It should be noted that this proposal satisfies all <br />required /prohibitive standards. Those elements of the proposal <br />cited in this report as problematic are analyzed as such in the <br />context of standards that are noted categorically as <br />"recommended ". <br />In light of this, I recommend that the Commission approve the <br />proposed deck with suggested design alternatives. <br />Some suggested alternatives: lowering the height of the deck <br />enough as to be more compatible with the existing <br />dock /boatlaunch, yet not lose substantial square footage; square <br />off the corner of the deck closest to the dock /boatlaunch as to <br />be more in keeping with the simplicity of the existing; construct <br />a terraced deck, a series of descending spaces, that would work <br />with the slope of the riverbank. <br />-- James V. Pastor <br />Staff <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.