March 1993 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• because he obviously refused to cooperate. Mr. Oxian stated that, if he was not president (of the HPC], he would make a motion to "tear the building down." Mr. Holycross said that he would provide all files for counsel review. There was no further discussion of the matter. 6. 1081 Riverside Drive -- Riverside Drive LHD Mr. Holycross read the staff report concerning the proposal. The proposal included the installation of a replica streetlight (the change had already been made without a COA) with a twelve foot (12') pole and a three foot (3") luminaire in the front yard. The project included the removal of a yard light approximately five feet (5') in height from another location in the yard. The staff recommended denial of the proposal by the HPC for the following reasons: 1. The proposed streetlight would be of a different size and in a different location than the previous yard light fixture; 2. there are no other streetlights on this section of the south side of Riverside Drive, nor any evidence that there ever have been, making this streetlight historically inappropriate; 3. the introduction of such a large streetlight in a shallow front yard area is inappropriate in scale with the proportions of other structures on the property as well as the character of the area as a whole. Co-owner of the property, Mr. Ed Talley, then spoke. He stated that they [he and co-owner James fesuk-Geisel] "removed the yard light because it was not appropriate... the erection of the is streetlight coincided [with that]... and [was intended] to be part of the ongoing since 1988 [sic], of getting the city and all of those involved to recognize the importance of the concrete hollow -spun posts and the "Octagonal Junior" fixture as well as the "Park View" cast-iron posts..." Mr. Talley then discussed the testing of various other streetlights in past years. He continued: "this has all been part of a chess game to get the players on the battlefield a few steps closer to the final objective accomplished—to get the East Wayne Historic District, the Riverside Drive Historic District to have the hollow -spun streetlight post and the Octagonal Junior luminaries placed back in the districts, based on the fact that we understand that project is almost ready to begin where the city is stockpiling hollow -spun posts and ... fixtures will be put back into both districts and to get rid of the toothpicks... one way to let people know you have a storm is to create a wave. Based upon the progress of the entire situation ... I am asking that you grant temporary approval on the COA because we have requested from the city engineering department as well as [I&M that] hollow -spun posts...be put underneath our luminaries... in the past ... [it was suggested that] streetlights ... be placed in a staggered pattern along [the street]..." Mr. Talley then stated that he had "investigated why we should save the darn things" and presented written material that he had gathered concerning the history of South Bend streetlights. He stated that he had "proven" that his choice of streetlight was historically appropriate. He also stated that "the objective of all this was simply to save the streetlights (that were] as historically important as buildings." Mr. Eide inquired whether the post installed was intended as a temporary test. Mr. Talley responded that it was and that they did not like the yard light. He then discussed the type of light generated by different types of fixtures and discussed safety issues in the neighborhood. "It was and it was not (a test]," he said. • Mr. Eide then asked whether it then occurred to him that he should get a COA. Mr. Talley responded that "the thought crossed my mind, the decision to not apply was based on the following: when I went down and asked whether I need a COA to put up a test light at Golden, I was told no, and figured it would not be necessary to do it for this..."