My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2019 01 14
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
>
2005-2019 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
2019 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2019 01 14
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:08:21 PM
Creation date
1/16/2019 2:32:14 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HPCPKT 2019 01 14
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
152
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Historic Preservation Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />December 17, 2018 <br />Page 8 of 18 <br />Option 1: Miner's Field <br />Selvoski presented a mockup of how the cabins could be positioned at the field. Pros of <br />this location include the ability to co -locate the cabins and to the original location, safer <br />pedestrian access, avoids majority of utility and drainage conflicts, cheaper option, and <br />no easement impacts. Cons include that it requires the removal or movement of trees <br />and there is more grading to meet ADA requirements. <br />Option 2: Highway 42 and Pine/Miner's Field <br />Selvoski presented the second option, where one would be at Highway 42 and the other <br />at Miner's Field. Pros include less grading and offers prominent visual placement. Cons <br />include that any future roadwork could change the work at Highway 42, it is $25-30,000 <br />more expensive to locate at two sites, and there is some loss of historic connection to <br />each other and to their original locations. Also, there would be easement, utility, and <br />sewer issues with this option. <br />Selvoski stated that the next steps for the Miners Cabins include review by Parks and <br />Public Landscaping Advisory Board and the final determination will be made by City <br />Council, on the docket for the March 5th meeting. <br />Staff recommends option 1, since the pros outweigh the cons in that situation. <br />Chuck Thomas asked if the restrictions on Miner's Field would preclude placing the <br />cabins there since it the cabins were not recreational. <br />Zuccaro replied that there was a deed restriction from its original donation. Staff <br />reviewed the deed and did not find that it would violate the deed. The deed required that <br />the area be used for activities, not baseball specifically. <br />Haley asked for additional questions of staff. Seeing none, she invited the architect for <br />the site plan to present. <br />Melonie Short, 726 South Glencoe Street in Denver, stated that she did not have <br />additional comments. <br />Chuck Thomas asked if Short agreed that option 1 was the preferable option. <br />Short did support option 1. As a historic preservationist, she thought that keeping them <br />together told a better story and emphasized that people used to live in the cabins rather <br />than letting them become a decontextualized symbol. <br />Haley asked for public comment. <br />Jean Morgan, 1131 Spruce in Louisville, supported option 1. She was interested in the <br />Highway 42 as a statement location, but she thought a restored coal cart and a mule <br />would be a better option there. She thought putting them together at the field was a <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.