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