Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 02/05/19860 0 LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES February 5, 1986 The meeting began at 6:35 p.m. Those members present were: Wayne Sundberg, Carol Tunner, Sally Johnson - Ketcham, Holly Evans -Richter. Staff members present were Edwina Echevarria and Barbara Hendrickson. Members Dick Beardmore and Michael Ehler called to say they would be late. Mr. Sundberg called the first applicant, Discoteca sta Isabel. The applicants were Leonardo and Santa Perez. Pictures of the current sign were reviewed by the members. Ms. Richter asked if the green on the building is where the former sign had been. Santa Perez replied that it was and would be repainted the same green as soon as the weather warms up. Mr. Sundberg stated the Commission needs to view paint samples to approve the painting. Ms. Tunner said if there was a move for approval, it should be with the stipulation that the applicant come back with paint chip samples. Ms. Ketcham asked if it was appropriate for the sign to be on the building itself. Mr. Sundberg noted that the application was for the sign (current) and not behind the sign. Ms. Ketcham moved to approve the sign as it exists now. 'Ms. Richter seconded the motion. Motion to approve the application was unanimous. Mr. Sundberg called the next applicant, Old Town Partners I. A representative from Gardner Signs stated that this an addendum to the approval last month by the Commission for Chocolate Wishes. The approval currently sought was for the addition of Points of View and Old Town Wines and the word entrance' to be added to opposite door and would encompass all three businesses. The businesses would be utilizing their own script as in their current signage. Ms. Tunner questioned the application and to where the medium brown would be painted. The Representative stated the medium brown will outline the gold lettering, LPC Minutes 2/5/86 • • Page 2 as is done in the Chocolate Wishes sign. Mr. Sundberg asked that the application be amended to include that information. i Ms. Tunner moved to approve the application for signage, as amended. Ms. Ketcham seconded the motion. Motion to approve the application was unanimous. Mr. Sundberg called the next applicant, Fort Collins Museum. The applicant, Brian Moroney, stated that the sign would remain the same color and the reason for the painting was due to fading colors. The color would be matched as closely, by Gardner Signs, to the current color as is possible. The handicapped sign would also be brown background and white lettering. Mr. Moroney stated Gardner Signs said the law only requires a handicapped sign to be color contrast. Mr. Sundberg stated that approval should be contingent on the legal color requirements for handicap signs. He asked Mr. Moroney for clarification on the lighting. Mr. Moroney stated that the lighting would be a spot light in the ground canister in front of the sign. Ms. Tunner clarified the color stated on the application in comparison with the color sample submitted to the Commission - that being a medium brown rather than dark brown. Ms. Richter motioned to approve the amended application, contingent on the legal requirements for Handicapped signage. Ms. Ketcham seconded the motion. Motion to approve was unanimous. Mr. Sundberg called the next applicant, Alman's Deli Works. Steve Ackerman stated that the sign would be painted the same color, after the old paint is removed. Ms. Ketcham moved to approve the application. Ms. Tunner seconded the motion. Motion to approve was unanimous. The next item was Poudre River Trust. .The Cultural Resources Board were attending to hear the presentation. Those present were Michael Griffith, Alyce Milton, Anne Steely and Christine Jones. Edwina Echevarria explained to the Boards that they would hear the presentation together and then separate and vote individually on the Poudre River Trust Policy Plan. Elaine Kleckner, City/Project Planner, stated that the Plan would be heard before City Council on February 18, 1986 and that she would like from each Board a letter that she could include in the Council packet, by February 12. She went on to give the Boards a brief outline of the Plan and the LPC Minutes . • 2/5/86 'Page 3 different types of groups that this Plan touches and that City Council relies on the different Boards expertise to give their input. This Plan is similar to the Eastside Neighborhood Plan and the Land Development Guidance System. Eldon Ward described what the Plan is and showed the area which is to be included in the Plan. The Trust was described as a group of citizens who are interested in the revitalization of the Poudre River Area. Included are landowners and persons who wish to preserve the area. The Plan is designed to balance the interests of recreational groups, history, educational, cultural and natural resources. The Plan wishes to incorporate the interests of various groups to broaden the route the Plan is to take. The original townsites are within or adjacent to the Trust area and are of historic significance. The cultural aspects are evident in the Power Plant Visual Arts Center and the Plan promotes the downtown area as another focus for Cultural activities. The first historic policies were contained in the Open Space Plan developed a dozen years ago. 40% of the are is still in the county, with a combined group of zones, so some modifications in the City's LOGS are needed to take into consideration the diverse types of usage this area has. Christine Jones asked Eldon to comment on the Outdoor Amphitheater. Mr. Ward stated that interest in outdoor performances has brought about a area that the Plan feels to be a location. Ms. Jones stated that the Plan notes "specific" and "futuristic" ideas and she wished to know what the amphitheater fell under. Mr. Ward felt it came closer to the imagined ideas. He explained that the Plan takes in alot of various ideas which range from the specific to the futuristic, so that they don't contradict each other. There have been no real studies done on the areas. Alyce Milton was worried that due to the interest in an amphitheater that this location, in the Plan, would be the only site considered due to the language. She felt the wording would be more appropriate if it were to state "possible" location. Mr. Ward felt that after the adoption, the language could be re -worded to say, "evaluation of potential sites" is possible. Mr. Sundberg asked the Boards if they would like to review the Plan step by step, rather than jumping around. He corrected Greenwood Street, shown on the boundary map and said that it was Redwood Street and that it appeared to turn off of Vine. Mr. Ward stated that the long term plan is to bring Redwood St. to the East of Linden through to Lemay but he did not think it had improvements on it. Holly Richter stated she would abstain from voting due to a conflict of interest. LPC Minutes Page 4 • • Page 4 Mr. Sundberg stated that on page 14 of the Plan, it states demolition criteria for contributing structures and he wondered why it did not say preservation rather than demolition. 1 Mr. Ward stated this is due to the intention of the Plan to have a review criteria/ alternative for demolition of a structure. Ms. Milton stated the use of the word demolition bothered her and would prefer a word like retention criteria. Mr. Sundberg stated that under the Preservation guidelines, they had their own criteria for demolition. Mr. Griffith remarked that it was only on designated structures and not on structures which are contributing but not designated. Mr. Ward said that the Plan is trying to have a review process/criteria before contributing buildings are demolished. Mr. Griffith stated that he found no guidelines as to what a contributing structure was and a non - contributing structure versus an intrusive structure. He asked what guidelines are used. Mr. Ward replied that there are not specific guidelines and that in the appendix on page 83, there are definitions. Ms. Kleckner reiterated Mr. Wards comment that the wording will become more specific when the Plan is implemented. Ms. Milton felt the language needs to be more specific so that the meaning is know. Mr. Griffith thought the Plan could state the meanings established by the various committees. This would enable the Plan not to be pinned down by a meaning but would establish who is responsible for making those decisions. Ms. Milton felt it would be nice to see in writing that the LPC and CRB helped to establish meanings to better define the word contributing. Because the Plan is to be long term, the definition should be broadened. Mr. Sundberg asked if any talk had come about as to whether all or part of the area would be designated historic districts as the Plan is more rich in sites than areas. Mr. Ward replied that the Trust felt they did not have the expertise. Any suggestion like that would not be valid until the area is looked at in a survey to determine the level of historic importance. Ms. Milton would like the Plan to include the word site when speaking of structure, since structure is more specific and to her, site is more flexible. LPC Minutes 2/5/86 . .Page 5 Mr. Sundberg questioned Mr. Ward about the map in the Plan. He asked the reason for the exclusion of Buckingham, Alta Vista, Andersonville and Lee Martinez Park in the map and asked if studies have already been done. Mr. Ward stated that a brief study was done a few years ago that encompassed these areas and that another neighborhood plan would be needed to include these areas and the Plan did not want to overlap. Ms. Milton asked why the area didn't include further south, since the River does wind throughout the City. She stated that if she lived in the Edora Park area, she would be concerned as to why City money was used only on a certain part of the River. Mr. Ward stated that this is a plan similar to the Eastside Neighborhood Plan and that additional studies would be done in the future on the other areas. Mr. Griffith stated that on page 25, Section II the Plan makes mention of the Land Use Policies and the Open Space Plan and felt not enough information was given for someone not familiar with these plans. Mr. Ward replied that in order to describe in detail these plans, another 75 pages would have to be included in the Plan and rather than leave them out of the Plan, they were just referenced. Mr. Jones asked about the funding of the Trust and felt she needed more information about the Trust. Mr. Ward stated the Trust was a group who asked for the grant which paid for the study of the Poudre River area. It wasn't part of the task to address the financial solvency of the Trust. He did say it was non-profit volunteers who are struggling and he assumes that the Trust would be around to follow through on the Plan's policies. He felt if the Trust weren't able to continue, he would hope another group would step in to continue. He stated that when one specific group is in charge, then the direction tends ` to go in only one direction and this won't happen with the Trust. Ms. Kleckner stated that she wouldn't tie the Trust with the Plan for if the Trust is no longer functioning, the Plan policies would still exist. Ms. Jones felt that the Poudre River Trust was formed to promote the Plan, and some clarification was needed. Mr. Sundberg felt that the Trust seems to become the thing that is proposed rather than the corridor area. Ms. Milton was supportive of the development in the Poudre River area but does not know how the Trust will exist in the future. Mr. Beardmore commented that their groups had adopted other City plans and the City Council adopts those plans as part of the Comprehensive Plan. The Trust were the people who wanted the study done. LPC Minutes 2/5/86 • • .Page 6 Ms. Kleckner stated if the Plan is adopted, the City will follow through with the Policies. She added that City Council has looked at the Plan and has not questioned the Trust and there is space in the Plan to explain the Trust and make it more understandable. Ms. Milton had concerns on page 34: Section 2-the word demolition, Section 4-tax incentive and how the Trust is going to do this when the Cultural Resources Board has been struggling to do this and Section 5-Promoting rewards. She would like to see suggestions on how to reward and give tax incentives and she would like to see more details on how all the above will be done. Mr. Ward replied that even though they did not have time or resources to address every item, they did not feel it should not be left out all together. They had a large array of interest groups and a grant that only paid for half of the study costs. There are policies throughout the Plan that suggest direction but do not detail how to achieve that direction. Mr. Beardmore commented that until the rights of the Trust are established, those rights must be left open. Mr. Sundberg asked if Section 2.2.2, which states, "these are historic preservation policies", is adopted as a Plan by City Council, do these become policy or would it be a proposed policy. Ms. Kleckner answered that they become policies and the next step is to develop the more detailed things, so this sets the stage to pursue what you want to do. Ms. Milton feels that the City has not addressed how they will reward citizens and would like to see these points made stronger. Mr. Ward pointed out the Implementation section which suggests a proposed amendment to Land Development Guidance System that includes points towards getting project approved if contribution is made. He said that the danger of having all the hows and whys is that if someone comes up with a better plan, you have to go through the process all over again to change it. Some areas are purposely vague as they couldn't address them all in detail. Mr. Sundberg suggested that the wording should be changed to read, "work to develop a tax incentive", as you can not preserve what you don't have. Mr. Ward asked if there are investment credits. Mr Beardmore replied there are national tax incentives but not locally. Mr. Sundberg pointed out there are not many references to the Plan working with the County Departments and wondered if they should be consulted since they did work on the Strauss Cabin and Bingham Hill. Mr. Ward stated the areas are either in the City or in the UGA and is out of the area of concern for them as an agency. They did work with county LPC Minutes 2/5/86 i • Page 7 storm drainage. Ms. Milton felt that on page 35, item 3 the location of the amphitheater was too specific and excluded the possibility of other locations. Ms. Kleckner stated that before putting anything on paper, Mr. Ward conducted workshops in his office. Other groups consulted them and all agencies have been kept appraised of events, including the county and Poudre R-1. They have had neighborhood meetings and a series of press releaseson KCOL. The DDA has looked over the plan and the Planning and Zoning Board has formally approved the plan. Ms. Milton asked how many private property owners are impinged upon and how much property is taken over for the plan. She also asked if property owners had come forward in support. Ms. Kleckner replied that most are in favor. There are a few commercial businesses along Vine Drive that are opposed. But the majority do believe it is for their benefit. Some property owners can make a trade. flood plain lands which are privately owned cannot be developed while the City owns land that can be developed. So there is an opportunity to exchange non -usable land for useable land. Mr. Beardmore stated that if the plan was adopted land would not be taken away from anyone. Ms. Milton asked Ms. Kleckner to estimate a percentage of corridor land that is owned by the City. Ms. Kleckner referred to map 50B and the areas that designate private and public ownership. Ms. Sundberg estimated that 1/3 of the land is City owned. Ms. Milton is excited about the plan because she feels that the entrance on Highway 14 could benefit from the Plan. She then proposed that her group meet and make a decision. She would then do a phone poll and get responses from the rest of the group. Mr. Sundberg noted that on page 54, item 4.3, it stated the Trust is the referral agency and asked about the influence of other groups. Ms. Kleckner replied that the Planning Dept, would routinely send out development plans to different agencies/groups and this would be automatic. Mr. Sundberg would like to see a description of the Trust since the way it is entitled, the Trust sounds like it is the document rather than the organization. Mr. Beardmore asked if there was a resolution made by Council to formally designate the Trust. LPC Minutes 2/5/86 • • .Page 8 Ms. Kleckner answered that the Trust has always had a part in the discussions when new members are appointed as they want to feel free to have Trustees who they feel, will serve the best interest. Mr. Sundberg referred to the Bibliography. He stated that a feasibility study was done in 1975 on the Old Fort Site for purposes of rebuilding and the study's recommendations. He asked why it was not listed. Ms. Kleckner answered that it was probably an oversight and that Mr. Ward would like to see the document. Mr. Sundberg asked the about the term on page 53," preservation area". Ms. Kleckner answered that on page 30 B, there was a map entitled, Revitalization Area Concept, which is an area that is virtually undevelopable. Mr. Sundberg asked why they didn't include the trolly as it may utilize the abandoned RR tracks and run north on Mason, along the Power Plant and over to the Museum and Library. Ms. Kleckner stated it was discussed at the worksession but not included in the Plan. Ms. Milton pointed out the CRB no longer had a quorum, as Ms. Steely had left. Mr. Sundberg asked the status of the co -committees and if they are still in existence. Mr. Griffiths answered that the Certified Local Governments (CLG) would not be continuing due to lack of funds. Ms. Milton stated that they needed to restructure the committees as they had lost membership. Mr. Beardmore said he would talk to them for if there are applications, they will get an opportunity at the money first. At this time, the meeting broke up into two separate groups to discuss further, the letters recommending the Poudre River Trust. Mr. Beardmore moved to send a letter of support to the City Council. Ms. Ketcham seconded the motion. Motion to send a letter was unanimously approved, with one abstention. Ms. Echevarria stated that Sherry Albertson -Clark will facilitate the letter, based on the Committee's discussion. A review of last month's minutes was approved unanimously with an amendment. Ms. Richter was recorded as saying," ..asked if the interior section would include areas which could be seen from the outside." The LPC Minutes 2/5/86 . • Rage 9 amended minutes should read, "..asked if the guidelines on building interior should be included because they do address structural features visible from the exterior". Mr. Sundberg went on to other business and asked if the Draft Sign Design Guidelines would be addressed at this meeting. Mr. Beardmore thought that they could combine the Guidelines with the Workshop, possibly after the next LPC meeting on March 5th. Ms. Richter said she would not be in town on the 5th would like to give her comments. Mr. Beardmore set a tentative date of March 12th for a combined meeting/worksession to begin at 5:30 p.m. He said he would talk to Sherry in regards to dinner arrangements. He asked what projects they were to use as case studies for the Sec, of Interiors Guidelines. He mentioned that there would be be a meeting of the Colorado Preservation, Inc., on June 5,6 and 7th of June and he will be able to discuss at the next meeting what the theme will be as the LPC may want to participate. Ms. Ketcham stated that Sherry had submitted an article for the Colorado Historical News and Edwina had submitted an article for the Coloradoan. Both deserve a word of praise for their good jobs. With no other business, the meeting adjourned at 7:59 p.m.