Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Questions/Comments from Commission members and responses included: <br /> <br /> <br />-There was concern expressed by Commission members regarding what precedent might <br />be set for other buildings in the historic district if the clay tile roofs were to be replaced as <br />proposed. It was mentioned that there had been problems with this type of roof. Mr. <br />Scheidt stated the roofs had been a problem over time, part of which was due to difficult <br />access to the gymnasium roofs. <br /> <br />-A question was asked about investigation of metal tiles which could possibly reproduce <br />the shape of the clay tiles. Mr. Scheidt stated they investigated a metal roof but cost was <br />similar and they were trying to be conscientious with these projects to address roof issues <br />and that there were other projects <br />and there was competition for the dollars from the bond issue. <br /> <br />-A question was asked about other materials that might be appropriate in appearance to <br />what is there now and what the lifespan and lifespan cost of the asphalt shingles was. <br />Mr. Scheidt stated that there was a 40-year lifespan for asphalt shingles and it might be <br />possible to gain lifespan with metal materials. He stated that cost vs. lifespan could vary <br />and required further analysis. <br /> <br />-The Commission stated that cost was not necessarily the issue and a question was asked <br />about how thoroughly the repair option was vetted. Mr. Scheidt stated that they did not <br />have multiple bids regarding replacement of the clay tile roof. <br /> <br />-There was concern expressed by Commission members that replacement of the clay tiles <br />would seem to violate the tenets set forth in the National Register of Historic Places <br />regarding replacement and that materials were mentioned frequently. Commission <br />members were also concerned that the asphalt shingles would not match the clay tiles in <br />design and other materials could be used that might better match the clay tiles. <br />Commission members stated that there should be greater investigation of the types of <br />materials that could be used. <br /> <br />-It was stated that the standards did not necessarily state replacement had to be clay tile, <br />but had to be consistent if alternative materials are used. Commission members stated <br />they were not opposed to different materials but would have liked to see that alternatives <br />were explored as it did not seem that one bidder showed this. <br /> <br />A motion was made to deny the application without prejudice for the issue to come before the <br />Commission again and presented with an alternative study to clarify the issue of historic <br />requirements. The motion was seconded. <br /> <br />Commission members stated that they would like to see alternatives explored and would like to <br />see the appearance of the building preserved while at the same time address the issue with <br />something cost effective that would last for a long time. <br /> <br />The motion was approved unanimously. <br /> <br />3. Other business <br /> <br />3.a. Update Roundabout at intersection of Delmar Boulevard and Trinity Avenue. <br />Informational Only. No Vote Requested <br /> <br />tm; šE <br /> <br /> <br />