My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
February 2006
sbend
>
Public
>
Historic Preservation
>
Meeting Minutes
>
HPC Meeting Minutes 2006
>
February 2006
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/11/2019 1:16:17 PM
Creation date
6/8/2020 10:12:30 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
South Bend HPC
HPC Document Type
Minutes
BOLT Control Number
1001361
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
47
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
Todd Zeiger: That was in 2000? <br />Catherine Hostetler: That was in 2000 and that's in the minutes from Jim Masters. So, not only were <br />they agreeing to the gatehouse landmarking, they were also amenable to repairs and to start working <br />on it. To my knowledge nothing was ever done in response to letters or anything. <br />Todd Zeiger: I have a couple questions, if I could, please. I just wanted to thank, Alderwoods did <br />send a representative down, we did have a chance to walk though and I wanted to thank you for that <br />opportunity. It was pouring down rain the day we were there, so I can attest to that and I can attest to <br />the fact that we experienced no leak in the building. There was one in the porch but that's because of <br />the hole immediately above where it was coming through. Moving the building. I wanted to address <br />a couple of issues John brought out in his commentary. It was brought up more often then I hoped. <br />Really, we are not interested in moving the structure. It needs to remain in place. It's construction of <br />granite and whatnot are really going to make it cost prohibitive to relocate. And so that really won't <br />be something we would pursue with vigor. We're looking at some sort of a use other than residential. <br />Obviously, we would need to look at some sort of use variance or special use permit of some type <br />understanding that zoning, spot zoning would maybe be difficult. <br />I have just some general questions about the report that you have presented as evidence for the repair <br />costs. Is there anybody here from Mekus Studios to represent them? <br />John Peddycord: No, we were informed today that the preparer was one of the owners of Mekus, <br />Christopher Mekus, and he's out ill with the flu. He has been since Friday. <br />Todd Zeiger: I tried to look him up online and I couldn't find anything. What's their preservation <br />experience? Can you detail... <br />John Peddycord: No, I don't know. I wasn't even sent a bibliography or anything. <br />Todd Zeiger: I think that's of importance to this hearing that the report that's been submitted was <br />prepared by an architectural firm that doesn't necessarily have a vitae in historic preservation. I could <br />find no evidence of that at all. What kind of dollars have been spent over the past ten years or even <br />since 2000 on any just simple repairs on this building? <br />John Peddycord: That I have no knowledge of. <br />Todd Zeiger: I think that goes to the heart of lack of maintenance to this facility. Not even <br />temporarily patching the hole in the roof, or fixing up a broken piece of glass that would have kept <br />the critters out that they have referenced. It would have been helpful. I have a number of problems <br />with the report itself and I can go through them. Without Mekus here it may be difficult. When I read <br />a report and I find inconsistencies, it makes me call into question the whole overall report, in general. <br />On page 3, their talking about the site, they start talking about sidewalks. This is the third paragraph <br />down on page three, and all of a sudden it devolves into a conversation about foundations and walls. <br />One sentence says, "As for the building the entire skin needs to be removed and rebuilt." The very <br />next sentence says: "The stone walls are in decent condition." And that's troubling to me. It shows a <br />really, a big inconsistency in this report and it makes me question how they approached this, and I <br />just question, questioning whether you can explain that; if they have given you any information on <br />that at all? <br />John Peddycord: No, I have never spoken to Mr. Mekus. <br />23 January 2006 HPC Meeting Minutes [Corrected Version] <br />911 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.