Photo by Whitehorse Star
DOUSING THE FLAMES – Firefighters work at the scene of last February's Log Skyscraper blaze.
Photo by Whitehorse Star
DOUSING THE FLAMES – Firefighters work at the scene of last February's Log Skyscraper blaze.
The city's heritage fund could end up covering some of the costs to repair the historic Log Skyscraper after one of the units caught fire last February.
The city's heritage fund could end up covering some of the costs to repair the historic Log Skyscraper after one of the units caught fire last February.
During its meeting Tuesday night, city council was presented with a recommendation that it spend $20,000 from the fund to restore the structure, a Municipal Historic Site on Lambert Street.
That's only half of what building owner Terry Atkins applied for after his insurance company provided $50,000 of the estimated $90,000 to cover the cost of renovating.
As Atkins told the Star last month, he had insured the building for $100,000. When he made his claim, however, his insurer – the Co-operators – informed him he had over-insured the two buildings on the property and would only be paid for the assessed value of $50,000.
With an additional $40,000 to restore the building to its original state, a requirement for such historic sites, Atkins opted to apply to the heritage fund for the cash, providing a letter, description of the work involved, cost estimates and insurance documents.
"Our main objective is to preserve our building to its original state, as it was built by Ernie Bergman in 1954, complete with hand drawn logs and original cut beams to restore it to the most original state possible,” Atkins' letter states.
The Log Skyscrapers (there is a larger three-storey building behind the two-storey building) were the first privately constructed multi-residential accommodations in the city.
"The multi-storied log construction is found nowhere else in Canada and has given them a landmark status within the Yukon Territory,” reads the report presented to council by city planner Mike Ellis.
The log buildings were designated as a Municipal Historic Site in 2000.
The heritage fund was established three years later, with one of its primary goals to assist in restoring heritage properties.
In suggesting council approve only half of what was applied for, Ellis explained that this would cover the restoration of the "character defining elements”.
As it was noted earlier in the report, under the city's heritage bylaw, no work that alters the historic character of a designated site like the Log Skyscrapers can be down unless it is done under a Historic Resources Permit.
"Upon receiving an application for a permit, the city is responsible for ensuring the character-defining elements of the building are not negatively impacted,” the report reads.
In this case, those elements include:
• the building height;
• exposed log construction;
• floor joist system and the wraparound balconies with pole railings;
• the separate exterior entrance for each floor level from the balconies all connected by stairs;
• low-pitched gabled roof, with the eaves extending over the balconies;
• the layout of the windows on each floor;
• the placement of the two buildings on the property; and
• the street level entrance to the first skyscraper with a minimal setback from the sidewalk.
"Whether or not the funding is approved, the city will be closely examining the restoration work to ensure the character-defining elements are met,” the report reads.
Ellis went on to state it's recognized that restoring heritage buildings can often be more expensive than typical repairs are.
"For example, it is often difficult and expensive to obtain custom building materials that more accurately reflect the original character of the buildings,” the report reads.
Both councillors Dave Stockdale and Florence Roberts were quick to state their agreement with allocating $20,000 for the work.
Stockdale was the first to point out that as rental accommodations, the Log Skyscrapers are revenue-generating and, in such circumstances, partial funding is appropriate.
Roberts agreed. She then went on to state she wants to see confirmation on the insurance information provided to the city prior to next week's vote on the matter.
Coun. Doug Graham was absent from Tuesday night's meeting.
In order to encourage thoughtful and responsible discussion, website comments will not be visible until a moderator approves them. Please add comments judiciously and refrain from maligning any individual or institution. Read about our user comment and privacy policies.
Your name and email address are required before your comment is posted. Otherwise, your comment will not be posted.
Comments (3)
Up 0 Down 0
Yukon Hootch on Sep 10, 2010 at 5:12 am
This is unacceptable. The City's Heritage Fund should not be depleted to fix anything that is being used as a rental. It is pretty hard to preserve "heritage” with druggies and hippies living in the building.
The owner got the building insured to safe guard his property and to cover accidents, ei. fire. He just doesn't want his premiums to go up. Sadly there is a downfall when you continue to rent to known drug dealers. This "heritage” building is being treated like an apartment complex; This owner needs to take responsibility and should not be given a hand out.
I'm sure there would be more people inclined to become landlords and rent out their property if they knew the City would pick up the tab for any damages made. Money from the Heritage Fund is given then the City should seriously impose some restrictions ei. no renters period.
Up 0 Down 0
this is nuts on Sep 9, 2010 at 12:09 pm
So, have we gotten to the point where we are saying drug houses are part of our 'heritage'? Given that the fire occured in the wake of a cocaine bust it seems to be the case.
Shouldn't the building owner be required to have adaquate insurance rather than milking the public utter?
Up 0 Down 0
why? on Sep 9, 2010 at 8:55 am
If maintaining this building in its historic condition was so important, why was it rented out to a drug dealer? Why was it rented out at all?Why do the rest of us now have to pay to fix it? Will it be rented again?
It would be cheaper in the long run for the City to buy it at its appraised value ($50k), fix it and market it as a tourist attraction.