Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19740904RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Study Session Historic Preservation Committee September 4, 1974 This was a joint meeting with Council and P & Z and the following people were present: Ramona Markalunas, Jack Walls, Stacy Standley, Jim Breasted, Jennifer Pederson, Chick Collins, Jack Jenkins, Robert Barnard, Spencer Schiffer, Lary Groen, Judy Ferrenberg, Norm Burns, Florence Glidden and City Attorney Sandra Stuller, City/County Planner John Stanford and City Manager Dr. Philip Mahoney. John Stanford The City/County Planner summarized all that had occurred since the HPC had been created. He mentioned the opposition felt at the Public Hearing simply because there was no criteria to follow so the HPC did an inventory of existing buildings considered indigenous to the area and rated them "exceptional", etc, according to the materials used, size or massing of the buildings and land use of those buildings and came up with criteria that are both workable for architects and yet in keeping with the historic buildings around them. Stanford stated that the main intent was to protect the area of historic character so that they maintain their significance through street landscaping, promoting visual unity along building facades that inclose pedestrian spaces such as the mall, link the topographical areas such as the Rio Grande land with the Little Nell lift and Rubey parking lot, and maintain the "green" areas plus promoting architectur- al cohesiveness in the construction of new buildings from the vacant lots. Judy Ferrenberg The Chairman of the HPC reiterated the fact that the criteria had developed from the HPC's needing to know what to base criteria on and that the only objection heard at the Public Hearing was that there were no criteria to go on. She felt that since powers had been granted to the HPC, it should be followed up with criteria so that architects have something to go on. Jack Walls Mentioned that he had shown the criteria to three architectural firms for some feedback and that the overwhelming opinion was that the criteria would make "new" old buildings. Norm Burns and Lary Groen CRITERIA Went over the criteria and explained them in detail. The seven items are as follows: 1. New construction or remodeling shall not extend for more than three town lots (90' by 100') without an alteration of at least 8 feet in the front setback line of the building facade which is parallel to the alley. Building roofs of the new construction or remodeling shall not exceed three town lots without an alteration in the form and/or height as it relates to the front setback. These roofs shall be flat, gable or hip. Established local historic variation shall be reviewed. 2. Exposed side and rear elevations shall be of ident ical materials as the front facade or of a color or material analogous to the front facade. Any street or mall facade shall be considered a front facade. Building materials other than brick, cut stone or clapboard siding shall be of a nature and texture Norm Burns and Lary Groen CRITERIA, Con't Jack Walls Sandra Stuller Jim Moran Walls Stanford Ferrenberg not to detract from the significance and character of the historic buildings within the district. Hip or gabled roofs shall be standing rib sheet metal, wood or composition shingles, or suitable facsimile thereof. Other materials shall be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Committee. 3. Fenestrations above the first floor shall be greater in vertical dimensions than horizontal. Building details, if used, shall be oriented to fenestrations, corners, roof lines and at floor levels 4. No new construction or remodeling shall have exposed structural skeletal elements other than load bearing walls. 5. Porches and stoops shall not exceed 20 feet along any facade. Balconies shall not project beyond the building facade. 6. Painted front facades shall not exceed 90 feet without a color or textured alteration. 7. Colors, values, intensity and color placement, being considered a valid controversial artistic embellishment and having an intimate relationship to all the foregoing criteria, shall be subject to review by the Historic Preservation Committee. As examples of what would be considered to fit the criteria would be the new RBH building in which the architects have been able to come up with a perfectly modern design that fits in with the historic area. But the proposed Marcus building would not be approved because of the hanging gardens and the balconies which will not fit in with the Galena Steet historical buildings. Mentioned that architects thought that there was no flexibility, that the criteria would lead to an "open door" or "Disneyland" effect and that they disagreed with legislating taste. He suggested that the HPC should be involved with old buildings only and that a Fine Arts Committee be made up with architects and other craftsmen. Stated that the wording had purposely been made vague in the Resolution for the adoption of the criteria so that there was flexibility in them. She further stated that other communities were deliberately keeping the wording vague. Questioned government's role in telling the public what their taste is. Again noted the apparent inflexibility of the criteria and that the architect had no way of knowing that he could deviate in any way from the old buildings. Suggested that a preface be inserted in the criteria explaining that the criteria are guidelines only. Also suggested that the HPC meet with local architects to get their feelings after explaining the reasons behind the criteria. Questioned what the Council wanted to do now? Did they want an HPC for new construction as they had originally voted or what? Did they want criteria? R~cordingfSecretary