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
changes to the building's exterior as long as the <br />School Corporation kept its administrative offices <br />there. However, these offices might be moved elsewhere <br />in 1998; in this event, the School Corporation hoped <br />to sell, donate, or re -use the building without <br />hindrance from the HPC. <br />Mrs. Sporleder said she doubted the HPC would <br />seriously -hinder --any--repai-rs--or--a-It-er-at-i-ons-th-at-th. <br />School Corporation might wish to make. The most <br />difficult problem, in her experience, would be window <br />repair. An important reason for landmarking the <br />building was to forestall major changes to the <br />building's exterior; still, the HPC would be helpful <br />and flexible in negotiating C of A's. <br />Mr. Oxian said there were only two types.of standards <br />for maintaining historic buildings, "A" and "B." The <br />"B" standards, which had overwhelmingly been assigned <br />to city and county landmarks, were relatively <br />flexible. So far, only Tippecanoe Place had been <br />assigned the stricter "A" standards; Tippecanoe Place, <br />however, was also bound by a number of restrictions <br />from the Southhold Restoration Facade Easement <br />Program. "B" standards were more negotiable, and <br />would be recommended for the Administration building. <br />Mr. Oxian then said that landmarking the building now <br />would help assure its future. It was important to <br />apply standards early rather than waiting,until <br />demolition was imminent. <br />Mrs. Petrass pointed out that landmark status wouldn't <br />place limits on interior alterations. <br />Mr. Gene Oakley then suggested that, eventually, the <br />Administration Building might be used as a repository <br />for ---the -papers-now- stored -in -the- Studebaker -National <br />I`UTSeUm.- - The museum, it had rec-ent-1-y --b-een----d+s-c-overed, <br />had such serious structural problems that its <br />viability was in doubt. The papers, which included <br />letters from the 19th century, might simply rot away <br />if a place were not found for them. <br />Mr. Oakley then further suggested that the -automobiles <br />at the museum might be moved to the Shetland Building, <br />west of the Administration Building. This would place <br />,.--..the entire museum within the historic boundaries of <br />--complex. <br />.�'.Studebaker <br />-_the <br />Mr. Oxian then briefly outlined a history of the <br />-,attempts, since 1971, to find an appropriate location <br />for the Studebaker National Museum. His long-term <br />goal in preserving the Administration Building, he <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.