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: I think that calls into question the validity of this report that has been submitted for why <br />it is not economically viable, but the same thing goes on, to page four. They talk about reinforcing <br />the existing structure to accommodate a new slate roof. That's in the second paragraph. I guess I <br />question why it needs to be reinforced. It already has a slate roof. The new one definitely isn't going <br />to be any heavier. My specific question is: did Mekus investigate the Indiana Code Rule 8 with <br />regard to historic properties and their renovation for this building. <br />John Peddycord: That I don't know. <br />Todd Zeiger: Rule 8, for everyone, it gives us a lot of ability to work with the existing building to <br />meeting ADA standards and whatnot. So, I think that is another fallacy in their argument with regard <br />to why it can't be repaired. So, those are my basic questions. <br />Bob Yapp: Mr. Chair, may I make one comment. Rule 8.is a very unique law that we have in <br />Indiana, very similar to the New Jersey rehabilitation code that allows for exceptions for historic <br />buildings. When you petition the state through a committee that oversees building code for the state <br />of Indiana. It's a wonderful way to work through ADA issues and other issues. <br />Todd Zeiger: Related to the Indiana thing, why weren't any local architects or contractors contacted <br />for the numbers? <br />John Peddycord: I do not know. <br />Todd Zeiger: Why was the Champaign company contacted for the slate roof? We have two really <br />reparable companies here in South Bend. Slatile, and many actually, Dudeck, Slatile. <br />John Peddycord: I presume, I'm speculating that that's because it's the roofing firm that Chicago <br />firm has utilized. <br />Todd Zeiger: One of the difficulties with using a company out of Champaign is you're obviously <br />paying travel costs, overnights for staff, etc., etc., which drives the numbers up, which calls that bid <br />into question, in my mind. <br />John Peddycord: They had three locations in Illinois. I don't know if the other two are any closer, I <br />don't know where they are. <br />Todd Zeiger: A hundred and some thousand dollar number, though I think is suspect given the <br />distance. <br />Shawn Peterson: Any more questions? <br />Tim Klusczinski: One, one for staff. Back in 2002 after an assessment by the HPC inspector, were <br />any repairs performed on the structure by the owner? <br />Catherine Hostetler. No... [muffled] <br />Shawn Peterson: Any other questions for? <br />Joann Sporleder: I have about three questions or concerns. Did you represent the Loewen Group <br />before it became the... <br />John Peddycord: No, I did not nor did our firm. Mr. Masters, I believe, represented them. <br />23 January 2006 HPC Meeting Minutes [Corrected Version] <br />21 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.