My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Jun 21, 2022 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
sbend
>
Public
>
Historic Preservation
>
Meeting Minutes
>
HPC Meeting Minutes 2022
>
Jun 21, 2022 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/25/2022 12:31:31 PM
Creation date
7/25/2022 12:31:24 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
South Bend HPC
HPC Document Type
Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
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
CITY OF SOUTH BEND HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION <br />Adam Baumgartner, 128 W Mishawaka Ave, Mishawaka, IN 46545, appeared <br />virtually and voiced his approval. <br />After due consideration, the following action was taken: <br />Upon a motion to approve by Sarah Andrews, seconded by David Wyncott, the vote was <br />taken. Two in favor, three opposed. Motion to approve COA #2022-0606 failed to have <br />majority vote therefore it is a denial of COA #2022-0606. <br />Legal Counsel Shakour clarified that, when certificates of appropriateness are not <br />approved, Commissioners are required to state their reasons for denial. Roll was <br />called. <br />Commissioner Hill (NAY): I vote NAY because I feel like they do not fit in with the <br />school, and there can still be things done to make things work. <br />Commissioner Downs-Krostenko (NAY): I voted NO because I feel that the <br />windows that have been installed diminish the original slim and modern, mid-century <br />look of the building. I am not convinced that the sunshade is an appropriate addition <br />at all, certainly from a Historic Preservation standpoint would never be an appropriate <br />addition. In addition, the windows that have been purchased and partially installed <br />are a different color from the original windows — the aqua blue color is very "on point" <br />for the original 1951 time of this building and the new windows are not that color. I <br />find the proportions of the header piece — which diminishes the square footage of the <br />openings to pretty much radically change the proportions of the building and is not in <br />keeping with any kind of historic preservation standards. <br />Commissioner Gelfman (NAY): I voted against this because the proportions, the <br />materials, and the ratios of the existing structure itself with this new configuration are <br />not in line with what this building was meant for, and it is not in line with what should <br />have been done in the first place, plus the fact that no permit was issued, nobody <br />checked to see if it should have come before the HPC before this was done, in which <br />case this all could have been rectified. <br />Commissioner Andrews: (AYE) <br />Wyncott (AYE): <br />Certificate of Appropriateness #2022-0606 is denied. <br />Vote: 2-3. Two in favor, three opposed. <br />Motion to approve COA #2022-0606 failed to have majority vote therefore it is a <br />denial of COA #2022-0606. <br />iv. 2022-0606B 113 Laurel Street Local Landmark, Ordinance #9938-09 <br />(Audio Position: 48:20) <br />The staff report was presented by Adam Toering. <br />Staff Recommendation: The Group B Standards allow for 'treatment' and `renovation' <br />changes to landmark properties, so as long as they do not alter the style, general <br />form, or massing of the landmark. <br />The proposal for mounting solar panels is inconspicuous. Staff recommends <br />approval of the installation of solar panels on the roof. <br />Page 13 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.