June 1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I • construction of the Pumping Station itself. Mr. Oxian indicated that he did not understand why the reservoir was not included. Mr. Duvall explained that the Pumping Station was being nominated for its architectural character and that the cistern was included not because of its character but simply because it lay within the boundary of convenience which circumscribes the Pumping Station itself. Mr. Oxian stated that the reservoir -was a man-made structure and did have architbetural style. Fr. Bullene observed that although all structures have a style the question here was the significance of the architectural style. He felt that he was not prepared to vote on an amended site at this meeting as he was not clear about- the architectural style embodied in the reservoir. Mr. Duvall suggested that with regard to the site definition, there needs to be clarity regarding the intentions for future development of the park. If the intention is to develop a preservation plan which seeks to preserve and restore its character as a planned landscape then a nomination should be prepared on that basis. Any preservation plan organized around the North Pumping Station's significance would need to emphasize the utility related aspect and site limits and would necessarily preclude some portions of the larger park from such a plan. Mr. Fine asked whether the Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology had been contacted regarding the eligibility of the Park for designation as a planned landscape. Fr. Bullene indicated that he found an educational value in the inclusion of the cistern as providing contrast of the utilitarian approach of 1899 to the high -style development found in 1912. He further stated that similar -contrast may be found in the attitude to the reservoir but repeated that there was insufficient information at present. Mr. Duvall noted' that it was not • necessary to amend the nomination at this time but that it could'be amended in the future based on subsequent research and interpretation. Mr. Talley inquired if this would require a repetition of the whole nomination process including competitive bidding for consultants, etc. Mr. Duvall stated that this would not necessarily be required so long as resources could be found for the work in-house adding that if the commission did not act on the nomination on this evening.it would miss timely placement on the agenda of the July State Historic Preservation Review Board. Fr. Bullene moved that the commission send a favorable recommendation to the Mayor and to State Historic Preservation Office for the nomination of the North Pumping Station Building to the National Register of Historic Places and that the commission investigate later amending the nomination with reference to the cistern and the reservoir. Mr. Talley sought clarification of the resources to be included. Fr. Bullene clarified that he was allowing that further consideration might determine to remove the cistern as well as addition of the reservoir. Mrs. Choitz seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 7 to 1 with Mr. Talley casting the no vote. IV. Regular Business A. Approval of Minutes 1. March 18, 1996 Mr. Oxian provided Mr. Duvall with his minutes with slight corrections inserted. Mr. Talley moved that the March minutes be approved as corrected. Mrs. Hostetler seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. • 2. April 15, 1996 Mr. Oxian observed that the motions for approval of -COAs were not fully stated as recorded in the minutes. Mr. Duvall indicated that he had been in the habit of fully recording simple motions only when they were for denials as he did not anticipate legal challenges to approvals but that he could fully record such motions if the chair so desired. Fr. Bullene offered as an example that