February 2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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