Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout1999-05-25 Town of Truckee JOINT TOWN COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES May 25, 1999, 6:00 P.M. Truckee Donner Public Utility District Board Room 11570 Donner Pass Road, Truckee, CA CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Susman called the special meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers: Drake, Florian, McCormack, Schneider, and Mayor Susman Commission Members: Owens, Threshie, Werchick and Chair Richards HPAC Members: Arnold, M. Norris, McGinity, LeDain, Rusanoff, and Zirbel ABSENT: Commission Member Tryggvi (excused) and HPAC Member K. Norris (excused) ALSO PRESENT: Stephen L. Wright, Town Manager; Tony Lashbrook, Director of Community Development; Duane Hall, Town Planner; and Vicki C. Soderquist, Town Clerk PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Jim Smith. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None WORKSHOP $.1 Discussion concerning the Draft Architectural Resource Inventory Update Within the Historic Preservation District. Mr. Lashbrook stated the purpose of the workshop was to provide an informal opportunity to present and discuss the draft architectural inventory recently completed by Kautz Environmental Consultants. The inventory included two documents: l) the summary with recommendations, and 2) the individual inventories for each of the properties inventoried. The objective of the workshop was to create a framework for future workshops and not get into individual properties. Robert Kautz, Ph.D., Kautz Environmental Consultants, gave a brief review of the document, procedures used, and methods employed, as well as a brief background of the firm and their qualifications. Their charge was to identify resources and compile documentation for the establishment of a Historic National Register District and identify historic themes for neighborhoods. Mr. Lashbrook stated that the basis of the effort was the policy in the Specific Plan supporting historic preservation which had a high priority. National Register status presented opportunities for financial assistance not otherwise available. The Town had regulatory standards for architectural design in place for several years. Mr. Kautz stated that in perfornfmg the inventory they had to use the terminology and methods acceptable at the federal level, but they were aware of the local standards that had been applied. They did not feel their methods would contradict those local standards. The inventory would be used by the Truckee Donner Historical Society tbr their application to create a National Register District for Downtown Truckee. They felt secure that they had created an argument to support their position to qualify for the district. They also felt the district would be quickly approved. R was anticipated that the inventory would also be used as part of the Town's permitting process to encourage retention of historic properties and maintain the district. Mr. Kautz then reviewed several historic preservation ordinances which established Historic Preservation Commissions. The inventory included three categories, those eligible for nomination for National Register status within the local historical context, those properties that were ineligible, and those properties that were not individually eligible but contributed to the district, i.e. retained some features to be historic. Teri H, Christensen, Kautz Environmental Consultants, stated that their review was based on appearance today and could be reevaluated as buildings changed. Mr. Zirbel questioned if historic materials had to be used to qualify for National Register status or if they just had to match the profile. Ms. Chirstensen replied that they would have to follow the Secretary of Interior Standards of Rehabilitation which stated that it was preferable, if possible, to restore original materials from the building or utilize an appropriate substitution. She then gave an overview of reconstruction versus rehabilitation. A reconstruction was usually only eligible if it was unique, the last, or best example of architecture. Mr. Lashbrook stated that in order to obtain federal tax credits on reconstruction or rehabilitation, structures would have to meet the federal criteria. Mr. Zirbel questioned if buildings were removed and replaced with appropriate structures if they would be eligible. Ms. Chirstensen replied that technically they would not qualify because they were not a historic structure. Mr. Kautz stated if buildings were replaced with similar structures they had to be careful, as it would begin to look phony. Good taste in replacement would be needed to continue to reflect the historic flavor of that period. Commissioner Richards questioned if a structure would qualify as historic if only the original frame was maintained. Ms. Chirstensen replied that would technically be a reconstruction (a new building) and not historic due to the new materials, i.e. it would look like a new building. Comrmssioner Richards questioned if a percentage of original materials that had to be maintff~ned had been defined. Mr. Kautz replied that there was no set standard. Ms. Chirstensen then reviewed the components of the individual inventory forms. Councilmember Schneider stated that the criteria was subjective and that they would have to deal with further refinements through ordinances or other guidelines. Mr. Kautz stated that it would come to a point where the Council would have to agonize over resources because people differed in terms of their values. The other thing that happened were the trends in communities as resources were lost at which point the Council may want to impose different restrictions. He found that in other communities that comn'dssions represented a broad range of interests and could review on a case by case basis and give opinions on the communities needs. The inventory provided a hierarchy of values. The federal government gave up on 1-10 rankings on structures because it did not allow flexibility. A case by case review forced the proponent to make their case, allowed the community review, and allowed the elected officials to make the choice. Councilmember McCormack stated that if the contributory structures were allowed to fall apart that area could be excluded from the district. Ms. Chirstensen stated that inc~lvidual components made up a sense of time, place, and history. Mr. Kautz noted that a disthct needed continuity. Commissioner Werchick stated that they could not just copy slructures but must retzfin a number of original structures to retain the district. Mr. Zirbel stated there was the on-going debate as to whether it was financially feasible to restore and felt maybe that should be included in an analysis. Mr. Kautz stated that the Town would know and Town of Truckee May 25, 1999 Special Page 2 suffer from the loss from loss of genuine history and once lost, the Town would make more of an effort to retain integrity. Councilmember Schneider stated that if all contributory structures were weighted evenly and people wanted to tear them down it was all timing. Mr. Kautz replied that Councilmember Schneider was probably right. Mr. Lashbrook stated that it was not the consultant's job to identify those structures at risk. Stefanie Olivieri stated that the process was missing a step, as the Downtown Specific Plan, Chapter 8, required that the community develop standards and criteria to determine the significant buildings to the community. She questioned when that step would be where the community developed the criteria and standards for which buildings were conthbutory and should be saved. Mr. Lashbrook replied that the Specific Plan was clear about the desire to pursue National Register status and that process was being followed. There was a timing issue and the timeline had changed which eliminated that step. The consultants had identified three criteria but he stated that there were also two others: 1) structures not contributing or eligible but if something was done to bring back the exterior of the structure it could have a different status; and 2) structures that were locally significant and that discussion could take a long time. At the present time ali structures 50 years old/older were afforded a high level of preservation. There needed to be a balance of property rights and community desires regarding preservation. Ms. Arnold felt the consultants should re-look at the Englehart House. Ms. Chirstensen stated that when compared to old photographs there were window changes, doors changes, and additions. The structure may qualify as historic if they brought back the original fenestrations. Mr. Lashbrook stated that there would be no motivation to do that as the building had been restored and was functional. Commissioner Threshie stated that it was important to look at the overall picture. He questioned if the use of adaptive reconslruction, i.e. maintain the original structure but add on to create an adaptive reuse would maintain the integrity of district. Ms. Christensen replied that there were specific guidelines for rehabilitation. In doing the inventory they relied first on visual appearance and asked if the addition seriously detracted from what the building should be, if the answer was yes, the integrity could be diminished too much. If not, it was possible that it could still contribute to the district, comn'Ussioner Threshie noted that any alteration or addition could be completely supportive. Mr. Kautz replied that some modifications could be done, their evaluations were based on straight faqade, comrmssioner Werchick stated that was the question, i.e. what percentage of a neighborhood had to be maintained (original integrity). Mr. Rusanoff noted that there was a transition Downtown of residential to mixed use and questioned if that would detract from eligibility. Ms. Chirstensen stated that in any rehabilitation they were urged to retain the same use, but she noted that there were also tax incentives to change residential into commercial use to make the structures viable properties but retain the historic characteristics. Mr. Zirbel expressed concern that the first reaction of the public would be that a certain structure was not historic, only contributed or did not contribute to the Town. The Engleheart House was a good example which gave a sense of history even if not historically correct and contributed to the Town. He questioned if there could be a change in terrffmology. Mr. Kautz replied that was why they had produced the hand out which explained their constrains. Each category had specific meanings. Councilmember McCormack stated that the public would not have enough information to understand contributory in the historic sense. Mayor Susman noted that the standards were required for the National Historic Register, but there were still state standards and the Town could also have local Town of Truckee May 25, 1999 Special Page 3 standards of what they did not want tom down. That was the problem in not having a criteria established prior to receiving the report. The Town had the Specific Plan criteria that covered structures 50 years old/older which was in place until the Town adopted a new criteria. Mr. Lashbrook stated that it was important to note that the consultant's efforts were very focused on historic resources, integrity, etc. Historic preservation was only one element of the Downtown Specific Plan and General Plan. There were also other goals and policies, i.e. economic development and in-fill and the Council would have to balance the values. It was not always the worse thing to remove a historic structure if achieving another value. Those structures on the edge were the ones that needed attention, but the consultant could not solve the Town's issues. Comn'fissioner Owens questioned if other communities had local criteria or different criteria for different districts within the community. Mr. Kautz replied that Genoa, Nevada had a local district superimposed over their National Register District but he did not know how they had implemented the local district. Cornrffissioner Owens felt that a different criteria might be applicable in Brickelltown and not Commercial Row. Mr. Kautz stated that a specific criteria was extremely difficult to apply, to try and do that locally was going to be awfully hard. They took the existing local criteria into account in their inventories for the National Register District. Councilmember Schneider questioned if the local criteria was not more restrictive than the federal requirements if they would they be in danger of losing National Register status. Mr. Hall replied that criteria could be established for local significance of structures that needed protection. Mr. Kautz recommended that be argued on an individual level. Councilmember McCormack stated that an example of local significance was the Chinese Herb Shop because it was the last and only structure with ethnic history. Mr. Kantz agreed. Ms. Olivieri noted that it had been stated several times that the district could loose some structures and still be a district, but the point was that the community had to decide the importance and significance of those buildings to the community. Mr. Kautz replied that to try to pre-weight that particular decision set the community against each other due to different values, it was very difficult. Ms. Olivieri replied that it did not seem that difficult to her. She felt there had to be some criteria established by the community. Mr. Wright suggested that the future process be discussed. Mr. Hall replied that the next step would be to review the methodology and criteria (methodology, evaluation factors and criteria, classification of significance, and Specific Plan standards) and HPAC would begin their review tomorrow. They would forward their recommendations to the Planning Comrmssion; the Planning commtssion would then forward their recommendations to the Council. The Council would then take tentative or preliminary action and send it back to HPAC to look at individual buildings and get property owners involved, They were looking at a minimum of five months for the entire process - the first step a minimum of three months. The second part could take longer if there was a lot of input from property owners. Councihnember Schndier questioned the public outreach. Mr. Hall responded that all property owners within the proposed district would be sent a letter notifying them that the Town was starting the process and also include their recommended classification. The purpose was to make them aware of the process and get them involved. Mr. Zirbel questioned if the letter would include their specific evaluation. Mr. Hall stated that it would not be included at the present time. The intent of the letter was to get the property owners involved and once staff was contacted they would send them their evaluation. Town of Truckee May 25, 1999 Special Page 4 t Ms. Arnold questioned if ultimately the people in the proposed district would vote on the formation of the district. Mr. Hall stated that they would not vote, but the application would have to demons~ate that a majority of properties were eligible or contributory to support the creation of the district. Councilmember Schneider stated that people needed to know all the implications. Mr. Kautz noted that there was also an appeal process regarding the individual evaluations. Mr. Zirbel questioned if the district was nominated what that meant for the three categories. Mr. Kautz replied that relative to the federal government there was no implication at all other than the added status of having tax incentives available, Mr. Zirbel questioned if the district protected the structures. Mr. Kautz replied that it did not. Mr. Hall noted that as part of the condition in creating the district the Town would also be adopting federal guidelines, so they would be making a commitment. The Sate Historic Preservation Office also had to approve the ordinance. The Town would be creating additional standards to apply to those buildings that were eligible. comrmssioner Richards questioned if they continued with the National Register process would they be putting the local process on hold. Mr. Lashbrook replied that an application would not be submitted until the process was completed. The Truckee Donner Historical Society would be making the application for the National Register District. Guy Coates stated that every year they found more information about the buildings in Town. He questioned as the new information was received how the inventory would be updated. Mr. Kautz replied that it could be updated at any time, as it was the nature of historical information to expand. With additional documentation the inventory became better over time. How it would affect the district was a separate issue, but making revisions was not a big problem. Mr. Coates noted that they could not change the Kautz inventory but could create a local inventory. Mr. Kautz stated that the Historical Society had already modified the Lord study with notes, etc. and agreed that it could be maintained locally. Ms. Olivieri requested clarification of what the next step would be. Mr. Hall stated that there would be review of the methodology and criteria used in establishing the inventory. CornnUssioner Threshie stated that there was exterior integrity, but also interior integrity/preservation where there was public access and questioned how the Town would do that. Ms. Chirstensen replied that it would have to be done on a case by case basis. Individual National Register nominations focused on both interior and exterior preservation. ADJOURNMENT, Mayor Susman adjourned the meeting at 8:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Vicki C. Soderquist, CIvI12~,Txown Clerk Town of Truckee May 25, 1999 Special Page 5