February 2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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