April 2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

47 and why it had been installed with out a permit. He further noted that it was the County 48 Commissioners wish to use the existing monumental lighting. Mr. Herceg noted that the 49 existing lights could be tilted upward to move the hot spot, which would better light the 50 cupola while at the same time decreasing the visibility of the light fixtures. Mrs. Choitz 51 suggested that the Commissioners go over and look at the cupola as it is currently lit. She 52 went on to ask if the wattage could be toned down. Mr. Rozanski stated that if the 53 wattage were lowered the top of the cupola would be left in darkness. Mrs. Choitz stated 54 that the top portion of the cupola is barely lit now. Mr. Herceg stated that the roof was 55 simply too small to accommodate the space needed to light the top of the cupola. Mr. 56 Talley asked if a small light fixture could be placed on the ledge of the clock. Mr. 57 Herceg stated that he did not like the idea of attaching fixtures to the cupola. Mrs. 58 Sporleder asked if Mr. Herceg had tested various types of lighting options, in place. Mr. 59 Herceg stated that they did run a light analysis, which, concluded that the existing 60 lighting would be the best alternative. He further noted that a diffusive lens could be 61 placed on the fixtures to better reduce the hot spot but there is no way to eliminate the 62 shadows. There was some discussion over the possibility of attaching lights to other 63 structures and pointing it at the cupola. Mr. Herceg expressed concern over the fact that 64 the County Commissioners do not own property in every direction. Mrs. Sporleder stated 65 that monumental lighting was inappropriate for this structure. She further noted that the 66 main issue with the current fixtures is their size and visibility during the day. Mr. Talley 67 concurred that he has received many complaints regarding the visibility of the fixtures 68 during the day. Mr. Oxian asked if Mr. Herceg had checked into the possibility of 69 painting the back of the fixtures to match the walls of the courthouse. Mr. Herceg stated 70 that it may be possible to paint the fixtures, however, it is unlikely that the paint would be 71 able to handle the amount of heat the fixtures give off. Mr. Ujdak stated that the fixtures 72 are ugly and that most people see the courthouse in the daytime, not at night. He further 73 noted that the existing lights are not appropriate on an 1850's courthouse and that there 74 has to be a better way to light the structure. Mr. Herceg noted that there are better ways 75 to light the building, however, they are cost prohibitive. He further noted that what ever 76 the Commission decides he would have to take it to the County Commissioners for their 77 final decision. There was more discussion over the effects tilting the fixtures would have 78 on the visibility of the profile. Mrs. Choitz expressed disappointment over the fact that 79 the cupola lighting did not turn out as soft and pleasant as the dome lighting on the Third 80 County Courthouse. The Commissioners left the room to go look at the lit cupola. Mr. 81 Oxian moved to table addendum number one, regarding the roof lighting, until April to 82 allow the architects to tilt the fixtures. Mr. Weiner seconded the motion. The motion 83 passed unanimously. 84 85 Mr. Talley circulated product information and photos of the proposed pole and fixture for 86 the courtyard around the courthouse. He further noted that the fixture is unlike any light 87 fixture that has every been installed in downtown South Bend. Mr. Herceg stated that a 88 decision had to be made and fixtures had to be ordered or the price would increase, so the 89 County Commissioners decided not to wait for HPC to locate the original fixtures. 90 91 2