Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 12/18/1991Landmark Preservation Commission Regular Meeting Minutes December 18, 1991 Commission Chairperson Massey called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m., 281 North College Avenue. Jennifer Carpenter, Bud Frick, Rheba Massey, Rae Ann Todd and Ruth Weatherford were present. Carol Tunner and Joe Frank represented staff. Allyn Feinberg of Community Services Collaborative was a guest. SUMMARY OF MEETING: Commission members and staff discussed the status and next steps in the preparation of the Historic Resources Preservation Program with consultant Allyn Feinberg of Community Services Collaborative. The LPC also approved a list of structures to be surveyed using the 1991 CLG Grant funds. CURRENT ITEMS: Historic Resources Preservation Program - Discussion Ms. Massey introduced the first item, preservation planning. She stated that she and Joe Frank had met earlier and developed a list of items and issues they believed should be addressed by the Consultants in the preparation of the HRPP. The purpose of this meeting was to review these issues with the consultant and the rest of the LPC. Mr. Frank stated he believed that the program should focus on identifying actions that should be taken in the next 1, 3 and five years and on how to spend the remaining historic preservation funds. He believed one of the products should be a specific work program for the LPC and Planning Department. And secondarily, the plan needs to provide some long term guidance. The context will provide a good tool for helping to determine what is important. Ms. Feinberg was asked to describe what she has found in terms of existing policies for historic preservation. Ms. Feinberg responded that there is a great amount of historical policy in the neighborhood plans. She believed the challenge was how to put the policies into practice. She believed the historic preservation community was frustrated and needed some victories. The LPC discussed different ways the HRPP could be implemented as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Massey stated that historic preservation must be part of land - use planning and part of the Comprehensive Plan. Whether it is a separate document or whether individual policies are incorporated into existing plans has yet to be determined. Mr. Frank pointed out that formal adoption of the program is necessary if there are any future legal challenges. Mr. Frank discussed different ways policies are incorporated into the LaMasrk Preservatim Commission December 18, IM 2 Comprehensive Plan. Commission members, staff and the consultant discussed the second item, incentives for preservation. Several possible incentives were discussed. The LPC agreed that the orientation of the program needs to be toward providing incentives and less toward proposing new requirements such as zoning, etc. The LPC stressed that a revolving loan program should be given attention by the consultants. Ms. Feinberg stated that the objective of a revolving loan program is the care and maintenance of buildings. Ms. Massey noted that buildings are often demolished because it is less costly to rebuild than to maintain old buildings. She believes that a revolving loan program would offer an incentive to maintain buildings rather than demolish them. Mr. Frank commented that the existing Local Development Company revolving loan program might be more successful if it were better marketed. He stated that incentives must be examined to see how each dovetails with state and federal tax incentives. Ms. Massey believed that the program should also look at the public purchase of historic properties. She asked if the City can buy properties, restore them and sell them for a profit, possibly for low-income housing. This would require cooperation with the housing authority. Ms. Massey asked the consultant to comment on the demolition review process for buildings over fifty years old. Ms. Feinberg responded that people are usually ready to act when they obtain a demolition permit, therefore, the key is to make them aware of options and incentives before they get to the demolition phase. Ms. Tunner suggested a public information campaign to increase awareness on the availability of financial assistance programs. She pointed out the need for cooperation with the fire department because they train firefighters in older houses and it is done before the demo permit is issued. Thus the houses are damaged before she can try to market them for salvage. Ms. Carpenter stated that knowledge of incentives may encourage owners to seek alternatives to demolition. She believed incentives could be a deterrent to demolishing a building for a parking lot. Ms. Massey stated the consultants need to look at why other cities have been successful at developing and implementing incentives Lmxhmrk Preservation Commission December 18, 1991 3 for historic preservation. Ms. Massey introduced the next item, avenues of communicating historic preservation. She believed that communication includes more coordination with the Cultural Resources Board, Planning and Zoning, DDA, the Chamber and the Visitor's Bureau. She believed better communication was needed between city departments; and between Council and the LPC. The commission discussed how to work with the local newspapers and radio on historic preservation issues. Concern was expressed about the accuracy of some recent articles. The members discussed other methods for preserving historic buildings. They discussed recent rezonings in the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods. They believed they were useful in preserving the neighborhoods but did not necessarily address preservation of individual structures. The commission discussed several methods for preserving individual buildings. The conclusion was that the HRPP should focus on providing incentives for these buildings rather than more regulatory measures. Ms. Massey introduced the next item, preservation of agricultural property. She asked that the Consultant investigate linking historic preservation to the growing interest in the environment. She stated that she had recently attended a conference where this was a subject. The LPC discussed that the City had little control over properties outside of the City, unless they were under City ownership. The consultant remarked that the Larimer County Commissioners had not shown much support for preservation in the county. However, she believed that there might be an opportunity with the new County Planning Director. Ms. Massey stated that, in other areas, agricultural districts have been created to preserve agricultural practices. Ms. Massey asked the consultant for suggestions to increase the number of individual landmark designations. She remarked that there are people in the community who support historic designation, but do not want to go through the designation process. The consultant suggested streamlining the designation process and spending less time on design review. Ms. Massey requested that the consultant prepare a comparison of the amount of staff and commission time spent on designations in other communities. City Council must become aware of the problem of lack of staff time. Mr. Frank commented on the need for Landmark Preservation Commission December 18, 1991 4 citizen support. Ms. Massey asked how the commission can best use the $160,000 in the budget. Ms. Weatherford suggested that some of the money should go toward more staff time. The Commission asked the consultant for guidance in this matter. Mr. Frank suggested that the consultant check with Dennis Sumner at Light and Power on the ZILCH program. He believed this was a successful revolving loan program that might have applicability to Historic Preservation. The consultant suggested that some time should be spent on getting public works funds. Mr. Frank suggested that the program needs to mention coordination with the Poudre River Water Heritage Area designation. Ms. Massey introduced the issue of changes to the "Draft Historic Contexts". She stated that she and Joe spent several hours talking about that report. She also spent several hours of her own time trying to identify a solution. She had several suggestions as follows: 1. Provide good maps of subdivisions that have been platted. 2. Provide more discussion of local architecture in platted subdivisions and comparisons with examples. 3. Replace the reduced maps with fold -out maps in the appendix. 4. Include property types at the end of each of the six contexts written and analyze property types by the criterion in that historic context. 5. Include a summary of data gaps at the end of each chapter. Mr. Frank is going to set up a meeting in January with Rheba and any members of LPC who would like to attend to review these comments and any other comments LPC might have about the contexts. Mr. Frank commented that a context is dynamic and, as we complete more individual survey work, the context report should be revised to reflect this new information. The context needs to be put on a floppy disk and updated as new information becomes available. Ms. Feinberg stated that she sees the level of discouragement with banks, politicians and administrators as a major obstacle to preservation. Ms. Massey commented that citizens need to see preservation in a t Landmark Preservatim Cogmissim December 18, 1991 5 long-term context and as a part of economic development. People think of preservation in terms of mansions, not ordinary houses. Mr. Frank suggested that preservation needs a more positive public image. The current image is predominantly anti -demolition. Ms. Carpenter said that the public must become aware that the thriving downtown area is due largely to historic preservation efforts. Mr. Frank asked the consultants about the next step in the process. Ms. Feinberg replied that they are in the process of interviewing key persons in the community. They will be providing a summary of research steps and an immediate action plan which will include land -use regulations, identification and inter -group communication needs, incentives, etc.. The consultants will also look at longer term policies and determine what to include in the comprehensive plan. Ms. Feinberg stated the consultants will finish the interviews by the first of the year and prepare an immediate action plan, following the completion of the interviews. A summary of land -use documents and their impact on preservation will be completed by the end of March, 1992. Ms. Feinberg will submit a new schedule to Mr. Frank by the end of this week. 1991 CLG Grant - List of Data -Gap Structures To Be Surveyed Ms. Tunner presented a list of structures she believed should be surveyed because they are significant structures, they are threatened, and there are data gaps on them. There are approximately 150 structures on the list. The list was the result of a windshield survey that was done by herself and Ms. Massey. The LPC discussed the list and it was narrowed down to approximately 125 structures. The LPC and City staff came to an agreement on the list. Ms. Tunner will prepare a final list and map, send it to the consultants, and ask for a bid for surveying the properties. Also, Ms. Tunner will coordinate any necessary changes to the CLG contract. Ms. Massey stated that results of this survey should be included in the revisions to the historic context report. She also believed that the City should not allow the consultants to proceed until there is an agreement on revisions to the historic contexts. Mr. Frank stated that a meeting will be held in January to discuss the survey work and the changes to the Historic Contexts and that the consultants have been informed not to proceed on revisions Larsierk Preservation Commission December 18, 1991 6 to the contexts or survey work until directed. Other Business In summary, Mr. Frank described to the commission the conversations between Ms. Massey, the consultants and himself which led to an agreement that it is in the best interests of everyone to move ahead with the contract at this time. Although there are some problems with the historic context draft, the basic issue of preservation planning appears to be on track. He emphasized that the commission must be very specific in communicating expectations and monitoring the consultants. He believed that this meeting was a good step in that direction. Mr. Frank will gather the comments of staff and LPC on the contexts and will be sending them to the consultants by the end of the year. Ms. Massey adjourned the meeting a 8:30 p.m. Submitted by Charlotte Plaut, Secretary.