My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
May 1992
sbend
>
Public
>
Historic Preservation
>
Meeting Minutes and Recordings
>
HPC Meeting Minutes 1992
>
May 1992
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/11/2019 1:16:25 PM
Creation date
6/8/2020 10:07:45 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
South Bend HPC
HPC Document Type
Minutes
BOLT Control Number
1001404
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
50
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
problems, and many of its bricks were deteriorated. <br />Mrs. Dennen moved to approve the first oart of the <br />mr000sal; Mrs. Sporleder seconded the motion. <br />Approved unanimouslv. <br />Mr. Pastor reported that the second pert of the <br />proposal was to enclose a second -story screened <br />------�--------�'--sleeping poroh-in-the-reaff-lf-the-house-'.-At-------�'��-------' <br />present, traffic noises from Jefferson and Eddy <br />streets made the space unusable as a sleeping <br />porch. The screens were to be replaced by a <br />combination of fixed windows and operable <br />oasenents. The size of all openings was to be <br />maintained. The screens were to be saved and <br />stored above the garage, should any future owner <br />wish to restore the porch. <br />The staff considered the porch a unique element of <br />the house, important to its historic fabric; it <br />represented climate-accomodating design (since <br />superseded by AC and ventilation systems) of the <br />early twentieth century. However, since the <br />proposed alteration neither destroyed the porch nor <br />contradicted the architectural style of the house, <br />the staff recommended approval. A further <br />consideration was that the porch was a back porch, <br />not a front porch. <br />Mrs, Sporleder asked Mr. E-ide what type of windows <br />he planned to use. Mr. E1de said they were Pella <br />-- windows which opened along the oenterlinm. The <br />original openings had been retained. Although it <br />was not possible to fully conceal the alteration, <br />he needed to enclose the porch to create more space <br />' for hi.0 family. He said such adaptations were <br />sometimes necessary, even within historic <br />districts, to keep the neighborhood viable. <br />^ <br />In response to a queetion'from Mrs. Choitz, Mr. <br />Eide said the altered porch was not visible from <br />the street. <br />Mrs. Choitz moved to approve the porch enclosure; <br />Mrs. Petrass seconded the motion. Motion'apormved <br />unanimouslv. <br />8.- Studebaker Administration Building --Second Reading <br />Mr- H- <br />o l�oro��--summarized the staff report on this <br />_building. The report described the building as "an <br />-integral part of the cultural landscape of South <br />Bend's downtown." It was historically significant for <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.