My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
November 2007
sbend
>
Public
>
Historic Preservation
>
Meeting Minutes
>
HPC Meeting Minutes 2007
>
November 2007
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/11/2019 1:16:17 PM
Creation date
6/8/2020 10:13:10 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
South Bend HPC
HPC Document Type
Minutes
BOLT Control Number
1001361
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
74
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
Klusczinski: Thank you very much. Anyone else? Any member of the public wishing to speak in <br />opposition to the current petition? Hearing none, Chair closes public hearing. Any other <br />Commission discussion. <br />Sporleder: I'd like guidance from Counsel on how you get around what the standards say. <br />Peterson: I'm not sure that you're getting around it, as we've talked about it before, your job is <br />to decide based upon factors is this an appropriate addition here. And you also look at what is <br />the detriment to the public in allowing it, and what might be the hardship on the applicant and <br />you weigh those to determine whether or not you approve a Certificate of Appropriateness or not. <br />In looking at what is appropriate, you look to the guidelines, and the guidelines help inform you <br />as to what is an inappropriate or appropriate assistance for it. And, I think as you look in the <br />guidelines you all see that the rating system is important too because the more significant a <br />structure will help determine what is appropriate for that structure. If you look to the guidelines <br />for that, it's guidance for what is appropriate and what's not. So, weighing those factors, you <br />decide whether or not you should approve this. From my view, if you choose to deny, you need to <br />state your reasons for it, and find facts that it is 1. not appropriate, that the detriment is not <br />sufficient to allow it, and that the potential hardship is not there either. <br />Riley: By not approving this request to replace the windows with wood, it's exactly what upsets <br />the neighborhood. I'm going online for this, but when we don't approve something like this that <br />will beauty the house they are objecting to HPC dictating what they do. We have a lot ofpeople <br />that are opposed to being historic because of this and it's generally the windows that people are <br />upset about. <br />Sporleder: It's always the windows. We can overcome almost everything else. I would like to <br />suggest to the neighborhood, just as an aside, that they have a neighborhood meeting and review <br />their standards and mods them accordingly. They can do that, and they can present the <br />modified standards to the preservation commission which will give us somewhat more leeway. <br />The words are, unfortunately, because I would just as soon approve the wood windows as not, the <br />wording is quite specific in this case. <br />Klusczinski: And I would make observation that the windows for this era of house are not <br />potentially old growth like some of the older properties that we have which is one of my key <br />reasons for always promoting the original windows for the structure. So, I see it as less of a <br />difference right now, so I see how we could make that transition but I would still always <br />encourage and recommend that homeowners keep the windows that are there if they haven't <br />deteriorated beyond repair. Specifically addressing the comment from the public, you can <br />achieve high energy efficiency with existing wood windows and storms. It's a fallacy that it can't <br />happen and that you must have argon to achieve it. We do remain sensitive to energy efficiency <br />because it's an endeavor to try and make the historic properties that we all live in useable and <br />sustainable into the future. So, having said that, this is a dual purpose C of A that has two <br />components to it. One is the suggested replacement of the original windows that are not <br />deteriorated beyond repair, in a non-contributing house, and there is also a front door <br />replacement here for a door that isn't original and is deteriorated beyond repair. So if there is a <br />distinction that we make sure that we speck what our objections are or our preferences are for <br />each of these things as we make our vote and recommendation. Did you have any final... ? <br />Chase: We do have precedent by allowing replacement in other homes in the area, so this would <br />not be selective precedent of selective allowing or disallowing as this has happened before. I <br />don't see that this would be the first in the area and it may happen again. But, as you suggested, <br />if you have a problem, perhaps go over the wording then this would be taken care of. <br />Sporleder: But here's probably not time to do that right this minute. <br />Klusczinski: No, there won't be. <br />Riley: If this were a contributing house of course you'd want ...I don't think that it's necessary. <br />Sporleder: Even if it were a contributing house and you were consigning someone to live with a <br />single paned window and aluminum storms are not terribly eff cient, which I know from personal <br />experience, that we're still stuck with the other person's observation that we're trying to make <br />things livable in the current day situation. So, I guess I'd like to go back to what Shawn stated <br />0 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.