Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCultural Resources Board - Minutes - 11/20/1975• 0 it • w CULTURAL RESOURCES BOARD SUMMARY MINUTES November 20, 1975--7:00 P.M. --City Hall Present: Mr. Robert Brunton, City Manager Ray Dixon "^artha Trimble Jack Curfman Ross Loomis Chuck Hagemeister Gary Hixon Guests: Carol Devinir, Recycle Somethinq Guv niTorrice Chick Burchfielr Poudre June Bennet 3 Landmark Foundation Pax Dixon opened the meetinq by asking Carol Devinir of Recycle Somethinn, to make her request of the Board. Recycle Something Carol Devinir reminded the Board of the presentation at the October meetinn, when Recycle Something had requested the Board's approval of situatinq a recycling center on the Old Fort Site property. At that meeting, the Board had tabled the request until the question of the fort reconstruction had been settled. Since then, Recycle Somethinn had appeared before Planning and Zoning and had received their aonroval, subject to a few qualifications. The recycling group was to have a formal agreement with the City for a lease. They would now be able to siq,n such an aqreement, since they had incorporated as a non profit organization. This aqreement was to be revie-PH. yearly by the City, and could be terminated if the site was -not kept in order. Recvcle Somethinn was to work with the Planning Office on the question of where fencing would be used and where screening would be needed. A locked fence was considered unnecessary. The group would use native vegetation (because it requires less water) for landscaninq. Carol showed an updated site plan, which was smaller than the previous area requested. Some of the Board members questioned whether the new site plan did not show the recycling center located nearer the planned Fort narkinn lot. Carol said that she believed the only change that had been male was shortening the si<e. Martha Trimble made a motion that the matter be returned to the Board, since it had previously been tabled. The motion carried. Mr. Loomis brought up the question of the historic designation of the proposed site. He wanted to know exactly what the historic designation meant in terms of use of the land. He questioned whether non -historic use would be allowable. June Bennett mentioned that a legal description of the land that had been designated as a historic site did not encompass exactly what had been the old fort site, because the City had not owned•all the land. She said that the landmark designation applies more specifically to buildings than to land, restricting any exterior alteration of a building. She didn't think that specific restrictions were set forth with regard to land use. She had with her a copy of the landmark ordinance, but the Board found no specific answer to their question. Mr. Hagemeister suggested that the legal question should be left to the City Council. Carol, in answer to questions from the Board, said that they did anticipate usinq the land permanently, and that the City apparently had no other land as suitable, since parkland was considered inappropriate, trail land had restrictions as to the use of motorized vehicles, and most other land had buildings on it, which were not needed by the group. Central location and the lack of any negative aspects had led to the choice of the land in question. Jack Curfman wondered why the group could not be located on land that had buildings on it, such as the powerhouse site. He intended to look into the matter. Martha Trimble disliked the idea of whittling away a historic site. there was some question as to -Planning, and Zoning's power to approve the site, because of the historical Cultural Resources Board --Summary Minutes --November 20, 1975--page two aspects. Carol pointed out that they would simply be makinq a recommendation to Council, and that Council would also consider any recommendation made by the Cultural Resources Board. She said it was her understanding that the Cultural Resources Board had precedence over Planning and Zoning, but that Planning and Zoning had understood that the Board's approval had been granted, subject to the decision not to build the fort reconstruction at this time. Mr. Dixon asked what the status of the fort reconstruction was, and Mr. Hagemeister renlied that it had been shelved. Mr. Hixon stated that he was not against the recycling project, but he felt that the planning office should have come up with a choice of sites. He felt that the Board would seem to put itself in the position of being against the recycling center simply by trying to protect the historic land. Mr. Hagemeister stated that he was not certain .just what land was covered by the historic designation. Ile thought it was possible that the proposed fort reconstruction might have taken in more land than that specifically designated as historic, He proposed a motion as follows: The Cultural Resources Board recommends the project and its location, provided the location is not a parcel of the historic landmark district as providers in the Ordinance .of 1969. Mr. Loomis seconded the motion. All members voted in favor except Plartha Trimble, who felt that a conflict of two boards or commissions was involved and should be resolved. Mr. Hagemeister felt that the wording of the recommendation would take care of any problems, and that the conflict between two boards had already been brought into the open. Carol asked if it were the intention of the Board, if the land were a part of the historic designation, to with -hold its approval. The Board agreed that that was its intent. Mr. Brunton asked Carol Devinir to get in touch with him in the morning. He stated that he would do some research in the City Clerk's office to determine exactly what land was involved in the historic ordinance. Avery House Mr. Burchfield of the Poudre Landmark Foundation briefly summarized the City's proposal to the foundation with regard to taking over the administration and restoration of Avery House. He emphasized the fact that no specific terms had definitely been nut forth by either side, though the foundation was interested in the proposal. Bob Dunn's heart attack soon after negotiations began, he said, had caused the foundation to be sloes in responding. He had been trying to pin down the exact costs to the foundation in the first, or exterior, stage. He felt that the foundation was now ready to make a decision, although it had not ,yet met to make that decision. He had obtained figures regarding the cost of roofing the building, but didn't want to reveal them, since the foundation was not yet at the point to enter a bidHina situation. Mr. Brunton at this point explained the City's rationale in openinq nenotiations with the foundation. He said that he and Mr. Holmes had brought the matter before Council for two reasons. First, authentic restoration is an extremely laborious, expensive, and tedious job. While the City could undertake it, it seemed wiser to have it in the charge of a foundation that could concentrate on that, project exclusively. Second, the City had felt that a private foundation might find people and groups more receptive to donating money. P great deal of money would he involved, probably well over a hundred thousand dollars before the Project was complete.' He emphasized that the city was not copping out, but was trying to find the best way to restore the house. June Bennett then spokeaon what the foundation was doing organization wise. She said that the foundation did not feel the City was trying to cop out. She and some of the other people interested in Avery House had been involved with the project for ten years, and anticipated that they would be working on it another ten years, or more. The Poudre Landmark Foundation, she said, had been created by the now defunct Poudre Landmark Commission in anticipation of such a project as the Avery House restoration. It had been incorporated and bylaws had been set up. She Cultural Resources Board --Summary Minutes --November 20, 1975--page three had with her a copy of the articles of incorporation and of the bylaws. However, she said, alterations would have to be made. The Poudre Landmark Foundation was apparently the only tax exempt corporation now in a position to receive donations and undertake restoration. She read the list of the members of the Board of Directors, She stated that the Board had only its founding directors --it had never gone further than that, because it had no project. Meetings had been held after the City made its proposition and the group had been very receptive. She had asked for a vote of confidence, because after making two applications for grants for Avery House, she had felt the need of backing. The Poudre Landmark Foundation and Designina Tomorrow Today had made the application for the grants .jointly. A total of about 415,000 had been promised, through the joint efforts of the foundation, DTT, and the Questers. This was evidence that several groups could work well together. DTT had expressed the fear that the foundation was not broad enough. !ors. Bennett said that that was true, because the foundation was presently only a board of directors. If it did undertake the project, she promised, it would develop a broad organization. There were many members of the community interested in working for Avery House. She mentioned Ginny Chamberlain, who wanted to do a fashion show, and Alice Kahler, who had gone to Denver to defend the request for a arant with her. The foundation intends to revise its by-laws and develop an organization, but these things will take time. However, there is a hard core of very interested people, who feel a sense of responsibility to Avery House. Mr. Hagemeister asked whether Mr. Burchfield had found any difficulty in getting estimates. Mr. Burchfield said yes, that many contractors were not interested in restoration work, or did not have the capability to undertake it. The roof, for example, would have to be cedar shingles, and many roofers didn't know how to work with them. He had consulted only local people so far. Mr. Brunton asked whether the work could be done in the winter. As he saw it, the foundation and the City might be some months away from agreement on Avery House, and the City would like to begin the roof work now, with money in hand. The tuck pointing could be lived with, he said. The City had not yet been able to discuss Ken Medearis's report about the lack of stability of Avery House with him. However, if all concerned were able to agree on the type of roof needed, and since the City did have money for this, he sould like to do it now. June Bennet and Chuck Burchfield agreed, as long as the roof was authentic. They pointed out that it could be done a section at a time. Mr. Brunton said that it would be authentic. That was why a master plan had been developed, at a cost of 17500.00. June Bennett brought up the question of whether the City could spend matching money before the grants that matched it were received. Mr. Brunton said that they could not, but it would just be a matter of estimating the amount promised, and reserving enough to cover it. Mrs. Bennett said that further money might be applied for, and Mr. Brunton said that in that case there would be the necessity of finding more donations to match it. Mr. Brunton said that he would like to get Bill Holmes and the purchasing department to work on the roof, keeping a common goal in mind, of course. Mr. Hagemeister asked whether any official action was needed from the group, and Mr. Brunton felt that it would be helpful to have a recommendation. Mr. Burchfield stated that he felt the City needed a General contractor who could oversee the project. He suggested Roy Borges, a good man who was interested in historic homes. He thought the Board might like to have someone they could depend on to check and oversee the work. He said, too, that it was hard for contractors to bid on restoration work, because they never knew what they might encounter, and had to bid high to cover any possibilities. He felt that if a general contractor were to use his judgement and accept someone to do the work on a cost Plus basis, the City might save as much as $4,000. Mr. Brunton explained that in a case like this, the City usually accepted bids on unit prices. It was slower, he said, but essential in certain types of work. June Bennett wondered if it might be better if the foundation did the work on a private basis. Mr. Brunton pointed out that the work needed to be done immediately. Martha Trimble pointed out that the Cultural Resources Board --Summary Minutes-41ovember 20, 1975--page four Board had been discussing the Avery House propo.3al since July. Some action was necessary before the house was beyond repair. She felt that if necessary the City should even advance money to the foundation to begin roofing,, at least, and have it repaid later. Mr. Brunton pointed out that this would not be legal, because the City could not turn money over to a private agency. He suggested that the Board make a recommendation about what they would like to see Council do on the question of roofing. .nary Hixon made a motion as follows: The Board of Cultural Resources recommends that the City put a new roof on Avery House as soon as possible, following the master plan already prepared and working with all interested grouns. Jack Curfman seconded the motion. All members of the Board voted in favor. Mr. Nixon asked whether the Poudre Landmark Foundation, if it took on other projects besides the Avery House, would have to broaden its organization still more. June Bennet replied that as she saw it, under the foundation there would be some sort of Avery House group to deal with the Avery House. Later it would be possible to add a waterworks group, etc., if necessary. She said again that the foundation had always been intended to be a broad organization, but there had never been reason to implement the plans, Jack Curman asked what the foundation would do, with regard to Avery House. Would it control the use of the house, or merely restore it? 14ould the Cultural Resource Board have any authority over the foundation? Mr. Burchfield said that the Landmark Foundation was not primarily concerned with the use of the building at this point. Their function would be to raise funds and accomplish the job of restoration. It would not be the place of the foundation, he felt, to decide on the use of the building. Perhaps recommendations would be uo to the Cultural Resources Board. June Bennet said, however, that Alice Kahler's group had already made recommendations of use to the City, including use of the house as a living museum, as a meeting place for small groups, as an administrative site, etc. Brunton said that Council had taken no action on these recommendations. June Bennet slid she believed Council had decided that the house would be restored as a 19th century building. The outside must be preserved as accurately as possible because of the landmark designation. The inside was governed by fewer restrictions. She felt that all the purposes recommended by the Kahler group were not compatible, Alice Kahler was reactivating her committee. June Bennett pointed out that until it knew the use proposed for the building, it would be impossible for the foundation to complete restoration inside. Martha Trimble wanted to know whether there was a workable organization in the foundation that could take the responsibility for Avery House. June Bennett said that now that the recommendation had been made that the foundation take the house over, an organization was being developed. Everyone was willing to assume responsibility, she said, but no one wanted to grab it. Mr. Brunton said that ultimately it would be necessary to go before City Council with a plan and organization that they could accept or reject, and at that noint responsibility would have to be clearly outlined.Part of this plan would have to be a nroppsed use for the building. Ray Dixon said that it seemed to him restoration world not be affected by use, but that use would have to be modeled around restoration. He was thinking in terms of authentic restoration, making the house loo!: just as it had when the Averys lived there. Mr. Burchfield pointed out that they could run into things that the City Code would not allow. The National Registry, he said, was concerned mostly about the facade of the building, so the inside didn't have to he authentic. June Bennett suggested that a good adaptive restoration of the interior might gain even more support from agencies like the State Historical Society than authentic restoration. A good revenue producing use would be looked on with favor. '1artha Trimble pointed out that it would probably be impossible to do an absolutely authentic restoration of the kitchen. Mr. Brunton pointed out that there were two problems with authentic restoration. First, it involved a tremendous amount of money, perhaps Cultural Resources Board --Summary Minutes -November 20, 1975--page five( a quarter of a million dollars. Second, the house should be at least partially self-supporting, or there was the question of who would maintain it. Mr. Dixon didn't see why an authentic restoration could not be used for small meetings. Mr. Curflnan mentioned the wear and tear on the furniture. June Bennett said that furniture was not a major concern, because the foundation had accession sheets (based on the Smithsonian system) with furniture offered by about twenty people. They were all set to accept and catalog these donations as soon as i;hey were in a position to insure that the furniture would be properly cared for. Furniture from that period, she said, was not as precious as earlier things, or things like the furniture in the Molly Brown House in Denver that had to have belonged to Molly Brown. She said that the Questers had met in the front and back parlors of the house and found it worked well for small meetings of less than thirty five people. She also showed the Board some sketches of Avery House that had been printed and were ready to be sold, as a money raising project. Martha Trimble mentioned that the outsi-le of the house could be used, too. She mentioned a proposal to have an icecream supper in the gazebo. June Bennett said that at a meeting held by Chuck Bowling, a group responsible for the operation of the house, this group being an off shoot of the Poudre Landmark Foundation, had been suggested. There would also be a restoration committee, etc. Martha Trimble asked whether the workers would be volunteers. June Bennett said that the restoration committee was composed of some of the best professionals in the City, and perhaps a grant could be requested from the endowment for the arts, so they could be paid a small amount. So far the work had been voluntary. Gary Hixon wanted to get the question of the City's involvement straight. It was his understanding that if the house was turned over to the foundation, the Cultural Resources Board and the City would have no further authority. Mr. Burchfield said that it would still be the City's responsibility to see that the restoration was properly handled. The City would not lease the property without strings. Martha Trimble pointed out that in any case the Board's only authority was to make recommendation to Council. Mr. Curfman felt that the foundation had not made any statements that could be pinned down. Would they .just raise money, or would they also operate the house? June Bennett said that the Board of Directors would be the ones to make this decision, with committees feeding in ideas. Bob Dunn would have to be involved in the final decision. Mr. Burchfield said that as he saw it, the Roard wanted to know what the foundation would undertake to do and how they would do it. He said that would be included in the foundation's response to the City's letter as soon as it was prepared. Mr. Loomis felt that the Board, before it continued with discussion, should make a decision as to which of Alice Kahler's alternatives it was supporting. By implication, he said, they were accepting the first one --turning the house over to the Poudre Landmark Foundation. Mr. Hixon said that as negotiations had been initiated by the City staff, the Avery House only came under the Board's jurisdiction because it was a landmark. However, the function of the landmark committee was not to operate landmarks, but to designate them. Mr. Dixon asked whether Bob Dunn would be well enough to attend the next meeting of the Board. Mr. Hixon said that he would like to be sure how much responsibility the foundation proposed to take. Would the foundation be willing to be simply a money raising organization, with the City accepting and using the money? ,June Bennett said that several people felt that if they raised the money, they should have a voice in spending it. Their attitude would be that they should be allowed to undertake the project without interference from the City. Mr. Brunton said that perhaps Mr. Hixon was alluding to a cooperation in which the Cultural Resources Director would administe►~ the house and have his offices there; the parks and recreation department would take care of the grounds; and the building and grounds would offer support -- this would be the kind of trade-offs the City might suggest. Nothing, he emphasized, has been worked out, but these were possibilities. Mr. Hixon said he was thinking that if the foundation undertook other projects, like the Nelson Milk House, it might need to spend so much time thinking of how to support its projects that it Cultural Resource Board --Summary Minutes --November 20, 1975--page six would not be able to manaqe them as well. June Bennett said the foundation would attempt to adapt to whatever role it was given. Mr. Hixon said, however, that if the building were leased to the foundation, but the City still controlled management of the house, there might be conflicts. Mr. Loomis wondered whether there were good working models of such an arrangement. Mr. Brunton said that it should be possible to find some. He pointed out that even City departments are drawing up agreements, because informal arrangements can too easily be forgotten or interpreted differently. Mr. Hixon said that his main question was whether the foundation wanted to undertake the entire Avery House project, including administration, or not. Mr. Brunton said it would be necessary to discuss this when the foundation made its counter proposal. Mr. Hixon wondered whether the Board could have an Avery House person to act as a liason with the foundation and also to act as a manager of the house. Mr. Brunton said that one main concern of the City was that no one should have a hand in the City purse. The Council would want to know how the house would be managed, who would manage it, and how it would be paid for. No one seemed to be able to come up with a proposal that didn't make operating costs a City responsibility. The Board decided to ask that the foundation offer a specific plan at the next meetinq of the Board, December 17th. Meanwhile, Ross Loomis suggested that Gary Hixon interact with the foundation during their planninq process. Cultural Resources Director Job Description F1r. Brunton presentee tEee Job description that had been worked on in its final draft by Bill Holmes, Mr. Brunton, and Val Ogden. Suggestions made by the Board at its last work session had also been incorporated. He said that the ,job description would be presented at the Council work session Tuesday, from 1-5. He said that the City had communicated with Arvada about a similar position there, but since only a single center was involved in that community, the ,jobs were not really comparable. In answer to a question from Mr. Loomis, he said that the City would only be able to hire a Director this year, and possibly a curator next year, and maybe by 1978 an auditorium director would be needed. Possibly this year CEDA money will be available for a position. The Board discussed a few minor alterations that they wanted to make in the job description (marked on attached copy) and Martha Trimble moved that the Board recommend the job description to the City Council as amended. Gary Hixon seconded the motion and all members voted in favor. New Board Member Jack Curfman asked when the City Council would appoint a new member to the Board, to fill the vacant position. Mr. Brunton said that the Council was not ready to make a decision yet. Five people had applied for the position. Museum C ice-Hagemeister said that at the request of Mr. Brunton, the former museum board had met to discuss the preparation of a statement of philosophy and goals for the museum, in addition to discussing the hiring of a cataloguer. They had also talked about bringing before the public, via a public meeting, the idea of changinq the philosophy of the museum. The meeting had been held at 4:00 Wednesday, November 12, at the Museum. The following conclusions were reached. (1) The name should be changed, as Arminta Neal had suggested. Proposed were: Fort Collins Museum of Western History, or Fort Collins Historical Museum. ,The feeling was that the museum had gone beyond the "Pioneer" designation. (2) The Museum should follow the goals set forth in a letter written to DTT several years ago. (copy attached) 0 ! Cultural Resource Board --Summary Minutes --November 20, 1975--page seven (3) The Museum should undertake more community outreach projects,,try to become more community oriented. It could have displays on Mexican culture, Russian German culture, etc. It should try to tell the Fort Collins story better. As to display, the museum concurred with Ms. Neal's suggestion of 60% storage, 40% display, but wanted some static displays, such as the Indian Teepees. Displays would be arranged in chronological order. Some living displays would be adopted, including flowers, animals, functioning craftsmen, etc. The oublic meeting had been discussed and well accepted by the former museum board. At the meeting a general description of the museum as it is now would be given and proposed changes and justification of such changes would be discusser;. The public would be asked for its advice on goals and what the museum should be, what they would like to see as Permanent exhibits, etc. It was pointed out that since G.S.U. no longer has a museum, the City museum would be the only one in town. Certain people would be invited to the public meeting who could insure intelligent participation, though no attempt would be made to pack the meeting. The Council Chambers were decided on as the meeting place, and January 12, 1976 was decided on as the date. Jack Curfman offered the use of the new art gallery at C.S.U., where the'0uesters had had their quilt exhibit, to the museum for special exhibits during the summer. He understood that the museum would be closed during this period, and this would be a way to keep the museum in the public eye. Martha Trimble suqqested that this might also be a way of making money for the museum. Mr. Loomis suggested that the museum should start getting things on exhibit, perhaps as travelling exhibits, and that they should start talking about the value of the total collection. Mr. Hagemeister said, in this connection, that a cataloguer was needed at once. Mr. Brunton said that there was some hope of CEDA money from the Colorado Arts and Humanities Council for this purpose. Mr, Hagemeister said that, though he liked the idea of setting up exhibits in the mall, etc., cases were a difficulty. Martha Trimble asked who would decide how the new museum would look. Mr. Brunton said that recommendations would come from the Board of Cultural Resources. He said that Robb and Brenner were the architects. They had already worked on a design for the courtyard enclosing the two cabins, using brick saved from the old museum. Mr. Hagemeister said that at this Point a technician was needed to tell the architects how the inside of the museum should be arranged --someone like Bob McQuarry who could be hired for a short time. Mr. Loomis said it should be emphasized that we need a plan loose enough that a professional we hire later will be able to live with it. He wondered how fast money for a consultant could be raised. Mr. Brunton explained that this expense would be part of the capitalization of the cost of the building. It was a normal building procedure to hire consultants, as Stearns Rogers had hired acoustical consultants in connection with the auditorium. Mr. Hagemeister asked whether the architects should be sent to Denver to talk to Mr. McQuarry, and what the price would be. 420.00 an hour was what he remembered. Mr. Loomis suggested looking for an established museum that the Board liked, and seeing whether that museum director could act as a consultant, but Mr. Hagemeister said that he felt the services of McQuarry would be best, since he was familiar with our situation and he had a contemporary outlook. ""r. Brunton suggested that Mr. Hagemeister set up a meeting between McQuarry and Bill Robb. Martha Trimble asked whether the Board could meet at some time in the present library -future museum, It was agreed that this could be arranged sometime after the Public meeting. Mr. Hagemeister, after it was determined that there was no further business to discuss, made a motion that the Board adjourn. Mr. Hixon seconded the motion and all voted in favor. FORT COLLINS PIONTER MUSEUM Preliminary report on a proposed addition to the Museum for the Community Activities and Facilities Task Force Committee of IDTT: GOALS - Continuation and expansion of the Museum's original function, begun in 1909s of collecting, preserving and exhibiting artifacts, documents and other material relating to the history and pioneer spirit and heritage of Larimer County, Colorado and the West of the High Plains and Rocky Mountain region; education and entertainment for people of all ages; to add to the cultural resources of Fort Collins, and to provide a center of attraction for visitors to the city. OBJECTIVES — Constructing and equipping an addition to the present Museum building, somewhat larger than the present north wing, completed in 1967. This would relieve the present conges- tion of exhibits in the Museum; permit display of numerous items now held in storage, addition and display of new material, and provision of facilities now limited or altogether absent in the Museum. NEED is felt for these facilities in the proposed addition: A room for Museum Board meetings and small conferences Open space usable for small meetings and traveling exhi- bits from the State and other museums An additional combined storage room and workshop Two toilets and one or two water fountains An entrance ramp to the main floor, possibly an outside elevator A third furnace; possible replacement of the older of the present two furnaces A preliminary estimate of construction cost is $100,000.