HPC Minutes 1978 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

February 20, 1978 Page 4 City council, at least for the Leeper bridge, because the city is res- ponsible for the approaches to the bridge and the lighting on the bridge. There was discussion on just what constitutes the approaches to a bridge and the maintenance of these. Mr. Eckerle maintained that the city is in charge of all maintenance of road surfaces and approaches, and the county is in charge of the actual structure. Mrs. Price questioned the idea of placing the bridges on the National Register to qualify for funding. She felt the potential for getting such funding is practically nil. Ms. Peck said she had made some inquiries and that the Leeper bridge was worthy of the Register. She felt the Leeper bridge should be considered because it was the "gateway or entrance into South Rend." Mr. Wasielewski then spoke about the background of re- questing landmark status for this bridge and clarified the issue. He said specifically the idea was to get some monetary help on the lighting of the Leeper bridge. After inquiry, Ms. Sporleder was informed that nothing thus far has been done about this bridge in regard to the national level. Mr. Oxian then moved to have the quest -.on of Tippecanoe brought back on the table again. Ms. Sporleder seconded this motion. Mr. Eckerle asked if any communication had been received from Mr. Smith at-Southhold and was told yes. The motion to bring the motion back on the table was put to a vote and passed unanimously. Mr. Oxian said he would like to see the amendment taken off because he had received a letter from Mr. Smith and also from the board. Mr. Wasielewski then read from the January minutes regarding declaration of Tippecanoe Place as a landmark with the standards left open along with Mrs. Price's addition • of an amendment stating that the standards be dalssified as "A". Ms. Spor- leder requested that the letter be read and Mr. Oxian responded by reading the letter which stated that Southhold wanted "B" standards for Tippecanoe. As stated in the letter, Southhold wanted to make alterations necessary to achieve commercial adaptive use of the building. Mr. Oxian said the amend- ment (for "A" standards) would be against the wishes of the owners of Tip- pecanoe Place. Mr. Nimtz suggested that perhaps members of Southhold, who were in the audience, be allowed to speak. A member of the neighborhood wanted clarification of "A" and "B" standards, and Mr. Oxian read a des- cription of what each entailed. He explained that the "A" standards were quite a bit more stringent in the exterior aspects of the building and also the landscaping. "A" standards stress the word "shall",whereas the "B" standards stress the word "should". Ms. Sporleder then clarified that under "B" standards the owner is under his own discretion in making alterations, and under "A" standards almost every change that is contem- plated could be looked at by the preservation commission. Mr. Lahey then spoke again and said that the basic reasons for requesting "B" standards is that Southhold Restorations is working on a contract for Cafe Jonell to use Tippecanoe Place. Some alterations on the exterior may be necessary for a restaurant to be put in the two lower floors of the building. He felt it was not prudent to subject the building to a very stringent form of control, as every small alteration would then have to be submitted to the Historic Preservation Board. He said it would cause many problems to have Tippecanoe come under "A" standards. He said • the Commission does not have to worry about Southhold destroying the in- tegrity of the building, and he further mentioned that after alterations had been made, Southhold might then want to up -grade the standards.