Historic Preservation Commission Minutes 2007 04 18

Home Browse Search

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes April 18, 2007 Page 3 of 6 Phare said that no other alternatives have been investigated, but it may be possible. He added that there are a number of existing pipes buried on the site, some functional and some abandoned, and that could add costs to a new building site. Muckle asked why no insurance claim was filed for the hail damage in 2004. Phare stated it was likely just overlooked. Muckle asked if such claim could be filed now. Phare stated it could be looked into. Muckle asked if the chemical feeds placed in the old maintenance area could be moved outside and thereby freeing up the maintenance space. Phare noted y need to be located in a temperature controlled environment and close to the e . facility, so that space is really the best place for them. Muckle asked if additional che al feeds will be needed in the future. Phare said it is likely. Muckle asked if the 1932 building could be used for storage for oth departments. Phare said it was possible but the existing doors are n therefore it may be hard to get items in and out. McMenamin added that a new building could be used f .ntenance and then the estimated $20,000 in demolition costs could be used to reha . ate the 1932 building. Phare noted that saving the 1932 building for .. line. se will add to the City's bottom Childs noted it was worth looking into saving the building and perhaps land marking it to make grant funds available for rehabilitation. McMenamin said it appears that saving the building is an option that should be considered. pretive value and could be useful as a reception Muckle added that the site has I site for school tours. Lewis asked if the 1 building has other risks or costs associated with it that have not been considered. re noted that environmental testing for lead and asbestos ack negative. here are any other water plants from that era that are intact in the not know. Chair Closes Public Hearing Lewis closed the public hearing and reminded the Commission members that the criteria for review are as follows: 1. The eligibility of the building for designation as an individual landmark consistent with the purposes and standards in this Chapter; 2. The relationship of the building as a potential contributing structure to a potential historical district per the criteria set forth in this Chapter; 3. The reasonable condition of the building; and 4. The reasonable projected cost of restoration or repair.