My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
December 1997
sbend
>
Public
>
Historic Preservation
>
Meeting Minutes
>
HPC Meeting Minutes 1997
>
December 1997
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/11/2019 1:16:21 PM
Creation date
6/8/2020 10:08:49 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
South Bend HPC
HPC Document Type
Minutes
BOLT Control Number
1001401
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
34
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
due to hi.s being a member of the Water Works Board. <br />• 4) 1997-1024 - Leeper Park — Placement of posts along Riverside Drive North <br />from Bartlett to the Sunken Carden to prevent further deterioration of the <br />grass from cars parking on it. <br />Mr. Duvall presented the staff report and passed out photographs. He further <br />noted that no one from Parks Department was present. Ms. DesLauriers noted <br />that she has been in contact with Betsy Harriman of the Parks Department <br />concerning this matter. Mr. Duvall stated that through conversations with the <br />Parks Department staff they were able to settle on using round wood bollards <br />which are similar to telephone poles. Mr. Talley stated that the use of wood <br />poles was appropriate, however, the text in the staff report was wrong when it <br />referred to the rose garden it .should have said the sunken garden. He further <br />stated that the poles should be no higher then 24 inches above grade. Mr. <br />Duvall stated that the height of the poles and the distance that they would be <br />from each other had not been discussed with the Parks Department as of yet. <br />Mr. Talley moved that the application be approved with the stipulation that <br />the poles not exceed a height of 24 inches above grade. Mr. Fine asked if <br />spacing of the poles should a concern. There was some discussion over the <br />necessity of setting a spacing limit due to drivers going between previously <br />existing poles. Mr. Oxian stated that the poles should be no more than three <br />feet apart. Then a question of parks department vehicles being able to have <br />access to the property was posed. Mr. Talley suggested that authorized <br />vehicles could get through by way of the designated parking area. Mr. Talley <br />accepted the amendment of having the poles spaced no more than three feet <br />apart and that access for approved vehicles should be provided through the <br />• existing parking area, to his motion approving the poles. Mrs. Sporleder <br />seconded the motion and questioned whether or not unauthorized vehicles would <br />use the access way left for authorized vehicles. Mr. Talley stated that he <br />had envisioned the installation of a gate or chain to prevent this from <br />occurring. Mrs. Sporleder asked for clarification as to where the parking lot <br />that was to be maintained would be. Mr. Talley stated that the lot was right <br />in front of the bridge. There was some discussion over the proposed parking <br />area and its location. <br />Mrs. Choitz expressed some concern that the height 'proposed for the poles <br />might be too short for drivers to see when behind the wheel. She suggested a <br />height of 28 to 30 inches instead of 24'inches. There was some discussion and <br />agreement with Mrs. Choitz desire to change the height. Mr. Wiener suggested <br />that the Parks Department probably has a set height for such items and that if <br />the commission set a maximum height of 30 inches that the Parks Departments <br />requirements would more than likely fall with in the specified range. Mrs. <br />Sporleder asked if placing the poles along the river side of the -street would <br />not cause the violators to begin parking on the other side of the street thus <br />causing the same problem there. Mrs. DesLauriers stated that this would not <br />be a problem since most people parked there because they want to be as close <br />to the river as possible. Mr. Talley accepted this further amendment of a <br />maximum height of 30 inches to*his motion. The motion passed unanimously. <br />5) 1997-1024-3 - 117 West North Shore Drive - Replace a tree that was removed <br />from the tree lawn with a Tulip Poplar. <br />Mr. Duvall noted that there was a legal issue regarding this property and <br />application concerning the tree that was removed without the proper permit. <br />• . Mr. Duvall presented the staff report and distributed photographs. There was <br />some discussion over the history related to the illegal removal of the tree. <br />Mrs. DeRose stated that it would be a good idea to have the Department of <br />Public Works get word to the Commission when some one applies to have a tree <br />removed who lives in a historic district or landmark. Mr. Duvall stated that <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.