My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
July 2000
sbend
>
Public
>
Historic Preservation
>
Meeting Minutes
>
HPC Meeting Minutes 2000
>
July 2000
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/11/2019 1:16:22 PM
Creation date
6/8/2020 10:09:56 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
South Bend HPC
HPC Document Type
Minutes
BOLT Control Number
1001402
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
45
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
93 <br />94 JOHN OXIAN: The Commission did not act on the Certificate of Appropriateness; <br />95 we gave the owner time to come back with a new sign design. <br />96 <br />97 JOANN SPORLEDER: I thought the Commission had approved the sign on the <br />98 west fagade. <br />99 <br />100 RHONDA SAUNDERS: The Commission approved the west facade sign as well as <br />101 two first floor signs to replace the old Standard Federal Signs and gave the owner the <br />102 option to return next month with a new sign design for the East elevation. When the next <br />103 meeting came around the owner of the Tower Building and Old Kent Bank had decided <br />104 not to pursue the east fagade sign. As a result the Commission denied the application in <br />105 order to officially close it. <br />106 <br />107 JOANN SPORLEDER: The Commission approved the first floor signs and <br />108 approved the west elevation sign? <br />109 <br />110 RHONDA SAUNDERS: That is correct. <br />111 <br />112 JOANN SPORLEDER: What does the Landmark Guidelines say about size, color <br />113 and number of signs allowed? <br />114 <br />115 RHONDA SAUNDERS: The staff report for the previous application recommended <br />116 denial because another sign would violate the guidelines which specifically states only <br />117 one sign per business. <br />118 <br />119 JOANN SPORLEDER: If the Commission already approved more then the <br />120 allowable number of signs why are we even considering this application? <br />121 <br />122 JOHN OXIAN: When the Commission wrote the standards in 1975 we did not take <br />123 into consideration structures like the Tower Building and the needs of businesses like Old <br />124 Kent. Times have changed and businesses like Old Kent need more then one sign. <br />125 <br />126 JACK VOS: We are going to forego the west fagade sign for the east fagade <br />127 sign currently being proposed. <br />128 <br />129 JOANN SPORLEDER: Do we have an application that specifically states that the <br />130 west facade sign will be dropped for the east facade sign. <br />131 <br />132 CHERYL GREENE: Your application does not refer to the west facade sign so it <br />133 in fact reads as if you are asking for an additional sign. <br />134 <br />135 JACK VOS: We were originally, asking for another sign but have decided to <br />136 drop the west fagade sign to better the chances of getting approval for the east facade <br />137 sign. <br />138 <br />3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.