Laserfiche WebLink
<br />been called to get more information; also expected information about clay tiles or <br />polymer tiles vs. asphalt shingles as related to repair cost and long-term cost. If the <br />School District knew the roof was in bad shape, it is not the fault of the HPC if they have <br />to take money out of other projects or shifted around. If the School District was not <br />aware of this at the start of the project, it was negligent of the School District. These last <br />few HPC meetings have been the same thing over and over. The impression is that the <br />School District decided on shingles and that was it. <br /> <br /> <br />-At the last meeting there was a range of costs provided in a chart. <br /> <br /> <br />-Concerned about the proposal process and what appears to be a failure to explore <br />in relationship to the guidelines in the Historic District. The standards state that asphalt <br />shingles are an in compatible substitute for Spanish clay tiles. The Commission has tried <br />to encourage the exploration of alternative materials. Felt insulted that between the first <br />and second meeting for this application, work continued on the building after the <br />application was denied. Did not get sincere respect for what HPC hoped to see in terms <br />of alternatives to be considered. <br /> <br /> <br />-The HPC should be consistent in terms of what the Commission is acting on. Major roof <br />work is mentioned in the regulations and it applies to the original construction and the <br />southwest wing; those elements of the structure are subject to the criteria based on what <br />is written in the standards. It is not based on the bidding process. The Commission must <br />rule on what is stated in the standards. That is what the vote should be based on. Other <br />projects will be before the Commission in the future and if an exception is made for the <br />School District, others will want an exception. <br /> <br />Mr. Scheidt stated that one of the gyms was part of the original construction and the other <br />rear gym was a later addition and would not fall within the standards in the Code. <br /> <br /> <br />-Section 34-84.2 covered new construction and there had been new construction in this <br />Historic District before. If there were to be a new gymnasium built behind Jackson Park <br />School it would not be exempt from the regulations. The standards point to the specifics. <br />for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings and specific building elements in the District. <br />When the District was established, there was a third building, but the regulations address <br />the two buildings. <br /> <br /> <br />-Section 34-84.2 speaks in general terms of development while 34-84.3 references the <br /> and Guidelines for Rehabilitating <br />Historic Buildings and lists specific building elements. By listing specific building <br />elements, are they more stringent requirements? <br /> <br /> <br />-The first part of Section 34-s for <br />Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings and the second <br />portion references what plans for alterations should recognize including building <br />tm; <br /> šE  <br /> <br />