HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 12/10/2003LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
December 10, 2003 Minutes
City Council Liaison: David Roy (407-7393)
Staff Liaison: Joe Frank (221-6376)
Commission Chair: W. J. "Bud" Frick, Jr. (484-1467)
SUMMARY OF MEETING: LPC received its 4 year CLG evaluation by Colorado
Historical Society. LPC approved sun screen window film for C&S Depot at
136 Laporte Ave. and a rooftop unit and grease chases for Armstrong Hotel at
259 S. College Ave., and determined Jordan House at 631 S. Sherwood St.
eligible for individual Landmark designation. Members also provided
complimentary conceptual review on proposed rehabilitation of 601 W.
Mountain Ave.
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Commission called to order with a quorum
present by Chairman Bud Frick at 5:40 p.m. at 281 N. College Avenue, Fort Collins,
Colorado. Angie Aguilera, Agnes Dix, Per Hogestad, Janet Ore, Ian Shuff and Myrne
Watrous were present. Karen McWilliams, Carol Tunner and Joe Frank represented
staff.
GUESTS: Dan Corson, CLG Director, Colorado Historical Society; Jack Gianola, City of
Fort Collins, and Dave Lingle, architect, for C&S Depot, 136 Laporte Ave.; Steve
Levinger, owner, for Armstrong Hotel, 259 S. College Ave.; Sue Walker, owner, for 601
W. Mountain Ave.; Barbara Siek, potential owner, for 631 S. Sherwood St.
AGENDA REVIEW: No changes.
MINUTES: The minutes for November 12, 2003, were accepted as presented.
STAFF REPORTS: Carol Tunner reviewed Colorado Preservation Inc.'s Annual Historic
Preservation Conference to be held in Denver Feb. 5-7, 2004. She also announced that
Current Planning is forming a Committee to Review Alley House Design Guidelines in
January 2004, with the goal of developing recommendations for City Council
consideration. Ian Shuff and Bud Frick volunteered to represent the LPC. Ms. Tunner
will forward their background and qualifications to Planner Troy Jones.
COMMISSION MEMBER REPORTS: Myrne Watrous reported on the Downtown
Development Authority meeting she attended. Several Old Town area projects were
discussed: Mason Street North, at Cherry Street, will receive an additional $540,00 from
DDA, bringing the total funding to $801,000; the Cherry Street Terrace Lofts, in the
Deines Building at 325 Cherry, will include nine small townhouses but no parking and
sell for about $175,000 each; and the Historic Webster House, now housing the Hope
Center, will receive $100,000 for restoration of the Olive Street fagade and renovation
for use by a CPA firm and the Fort Collins Museum. Joe Frank added that the
Downtown Strategic Plan is now scheduled to go before City Council on February 3,
Landmark Preservation Commission
December 10, 2003, Meeting Minutes
Page 2
and the building height issue could be controversial, as several property owners are
planning to testify.
Agnes Dix reviewed a follow-up letter from the Natural Resources Department regarding
public input on the Land Conservation and Stewardship Master Plan Update in which
she participated. In part, the letter stated, "Overall, most people were in favor of the plan
as presented and expressed confidence in the Natural Areas Program to continue to
implement its mission to protect and enhance land with existing or potential natural
areas values, as well as lands that serve as community separators, and lands with
scenic values.... Many people feel a sense of urgency to protect lands before they are
developed, especially in the regional area... [and] commented on using partnerships to
boost our conservation power." By the end of 2003, the total lands protected under the
program is expected to be 10,833 acres.
PRESENTATION
Fort Collins CLG Evaluation -- Dan Corson, CLG Director, Colorado Historical
Society, introduced by Carol Tunner.
Dan Corson was on hand to observe an LPC public hearing as part of the Colorado
Historical Society's evaluation of the city's historic preservation processes, performed
every four years. A favorable evaluation results in continuation of the City's status as a
Certified Local Government (CLG.) CLGs were created in 1980 to administer state
review responsibilities for federal programs created under the 1966 National Historic
Preservation Act. (That Act was passed in response to urban renewal plans for
wholesale razing of old buildings and the routing of the interstate highway system
through older neighborhoods.) There are now 31 CLGs in Colorado, with Berthoud and
Loveland among the newest. CLGs know the local preservation needs best and give
their communities access to state preservation tax credits, grants from the State
Historical Fund and other financial incentives; 10 percent of federal funds received by
the Historical Society must be passed through to CLGs as grants. This funding is
augmented by grants from the State Historical Fund. The number of surveyed
properties in the state has shot way up in the decade between 1990 and 2000, thanks
to the efforts of CLGs, which increased the state's share of federal funds.
Mr. Corson explained the minimal federal requirements to become a CLG: a local
ordinance outlining its policies and procedures, a commission whose members meet
certain requirements in terms of experience and qualifications, and a system for
surveying historic buildings in the community. The state additionally requires continuing
education for commission members and encourages observing other commissions in
action.
The advantages of being a CLG are: access to a no -match grant program and state
income tax credit, an elevated status under the Section 106 Review Process, which
allows the CLG to review and comment on all projects receiving federal funds, and
ability to comment on local National Register nominations. In response to a question by
Landmark Preservation Commission
December 10, 2003, Meeting Minutes
Page 3
Ms. Tunner, Mr. Corson replied that In the case of school district projects using federal
funds, the Colorado Historical Society's comments aren't necessarily the last word.
Mr. Corson distributed a number of handouts, and urged members to visit the Colorado
Historical Society website, www.coloradohistory-oahp.org/.
CURRENT REVIEW
1. 136 Laporte Ave., C&S Deport -- Sun Screen Window Film Application,
Conceptual/Final Approval -- presented by Dave Lingle, Aller-Lingle Architects,
and Jack Gianola, Operations Services Department, introduced by Carol Tunner.
Because his firm, Aller-Lingle, is working on this project, Ian Shuff recused
himself from the discussion and left the room.
The adaptive reuse of the old C&S Depot into the Downtown Transit Center has
had some issues with heating and cooling between the two segregated areas of
the building. Among other mechanical changes, the architects are recommending
applying a special new window film to the inside of seven interior storm windows
behind the historic double -hung windows. Staff recommends the window film as
a good reversible first step to begin to solve the problem. It is light in tint, and
most importantly, it will be applied on the non -original interior storms, minimizing
its visibility.
Dave Lingle presented drawings showing the location of the seven large and one
small office windows and samples of two types of film, to show how much clearer
the proposed film is than typical film. He said his firm had also looked at the
option of using awnings, but decided the film, which contains metallic filaments,
would be a better solution. In response to a question from Janet Ore, Mr. Lingle
said he has not seen any photos showing historic awnings, other than some circa
1950s metal ones on the south face only. Jack Gianola added that a sample of
the film has been installed on the lower sash of the southeast office window by
Panorama Designer and Safety Films, based in Longmont. It adheres with water
and becomes fairly permanent once it dries, but could be removed if needed. It is
a relatively new product that has been used on other historic projects, but none
locally. Carol Tunner reported that a test of a sample in her office blocked a
noticeable amount of solar heat. Agnes Dix asked whether the heat blocked at
the interior storm would be trapped between the outer panes. Mr. Lingle expects
it to radiate back out, since the storms aren't sealed as tightly as a double -pane
window would be.
Public input: None
Janet Ore moved the LPC approve the application of sun screen window
film as presented on seven large and one small interior storm windows at
Landmark Preservation Commission
December 10, 2003, Meeting Minutes
Page 4
the C&S Depot, 136 Laporte Ave. Agnes Dix seconded. The motion carried
unanimously, 6-0.
Per Hogestad commended the applicants on a good solution to the problem.
2. 259 S. College Ave., Armstrong Hotel -- Rooftop Unit for Grease Chases,
Conceptual/Final Approval -- presented by Steve Levinger, owner, introduced
by Carol Tunner.
Ian Shuff returned for this discussion.
On April 10, the LPC directed staff to administratively approve grease chase
ductwork to the roof in the light wells that will remove the exhaust and return
fresh air for the large grill that is the centerpiece of Hu -Hot Mongolian Barbecue
restaurant, a major tenant on the first floor of the Armstrong Hotel. There is some
related mechanical equipment that must be installed on the roof to make the
system work, specifically a make-up air furnace/cooler and two exhaust fans, to
be installed over the middle wing of the third floor roof. This equipment weighs
about 2500 pounds, and will be supported on a structural steel frame resting on
the parapet walls, similar to the support designed for the large rooftop HVAC
units approved by the LPC in April. Not only is this installation completely
reversible and not visible from the two primary facades, But they will also remove
the existing swamp cooler and related ductwork which are far more obtrusive and
visible. This installation will require three new chases in the light wells.
Staff recommends approval of the rooftop installation based on reversibility,
adaptive reuse necessity, less significant elevation impact, and the fact that it will
not destroy any historic material.
Public input: None
Angie Aguilera moved the LPC approve the rooftop unit for the approved
grease chases for Conceptual and Final Review, with the number of chases
changed from two to three, at 259 S. College Ave., Armstrong Hotel. Per
Hogestad seconded. The motion carried unanimously, 7-0.
Carol Tunner asked Mr. Levinger if the LPC had seen plans for the floor tiling,
pressed -tin ceilings, and doors for the entryways of the storefronts on the New
Armstrong Hotel. Mr. Levinger will check with Dick Beardmore, and provide
photos of the entryways for the January 14, 2004, LPC meeting.
3. 601 W. Mountain Ave. -- Complimentary Conceptual Review of
Rehabilitation and Proposed Designation -- presented by Sue Walker, owner,
introduced by Carol Tunner.
Landmark Preservation Commission
December 10, 2003, Meeting Minutes
Page 5
Ms. Walker is in the process of buying this property for her residence. The house
needs work, and she is interested in pursing designation for the available
financial incentives. She has no plans, but is seeking direction on proposed work
to include a new asphalt roof, installing gutter, repairing foundation structural
problems, and eventually recreating a historic porch that has been removed. No
photos have yet been found showing the porch, but there is documentary and
physical evidence of it, in the foundation, information on old building permits and
a site plan footprint on historic Sanborn Maps. A similar canted or corner
entrance on 301 S. Loomis has a simple but "contemporary to the period" porch.
A future challenge is the garage, which is partially on the next door neighbor's
property. The garage needs work -- the roof leaks and is too small for cars -- and
the absentee owner/neighbor would prefer to tear it down, while Ms. Walker
would like to use it for storage. Two contracts dating from 1954 show both the
garage and driveway were to be shared by the two properties. The interior of the
garage is divided by a wall, with doors that lock on either end. Ms. Walker is
considering adding a garage to the back of her house, entirely on her property.
Ms. Walker also asked if the LPC could recommend local contractors with
experience working on historic houses. Ms. Tunner said while the LPC cannot
recommend any contractors, she could provide a list of contractors who have
worked on similar projects, and for Ms. Walker to ask for references. Ms. Tunner
can also provide copies of building permits for repairs, for Ms. Walker's insurance
company.
Janet Ore cautioned against adding the garage attached to the back of the
house, since attached garages are generally a post -World War II feature and the
house dates from 1890.
The exterior is painted soft brick, which Ms. Walker will not be stripping. Heating
is another problem, because when central heating replaced the original coal
stoves, the ceilings were dropped to accommodate the ductwork and fluorescent
lights were added. The furnace, hot water heater and washer and dryer are
currently in a closet in the bedroom; Ms. Walker would like to add a utility room
for the washer and dryer, and dig out the crawlspace to accommodate the
furnace and hot water heater below.
The LPC discussed options for the garage. It might be possible to obtain a
variance to move it so it is entirely on Ms. Walker's property, but that would not
void the existing contract that specifies shared ownership. The Commission has
previously provided loans for repairing garages that were designated as part of
the property. In this case, both property owners would have to agree to the
designation. Ms. Walker could designate the house without the garage, but it
would be unlikely the LPC would approve a new garage attached to the back of
the house. It may be just as difficult for the neighbor to sell her property with the
shared garage as it would be without any garage at all.
Landmark Preservation Commission
December 10, 2003, Meeting Minutes
Page 6
Public input: None
Applicant will return to the LPC in January, after meeting with the owner of the
neighboring property.
OTHER BUSINESS
631 S. Sherwood St., Jordan House -- Determination of Eligibility for Landmark
Designation -- presented by Barbara Siek, potential owner, introduced by Karen
McWiliams.
Because of a possible conflict of interest, Angie Aguilera recused herself and left the
meeting. Per Hogestad reported that he had had a previous conversation with the
applicant regarding process but not the specifics of the application.
At the request of the applicant, the Director of Advance Planning and the Chair of the
LPC reviewed the eligibility of the property for Landmark designation. There was
disagreement on the property's level of eligibility; therefore, pursuant to Sec. 14-72(a)(2)
of the City Code, the application was referred to the full Commission.
The property was recently surveyed by Tatanka Historical Associates, who found that it
could qualify for individual Landmark designation under Standard 3, as a property that
embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, and
stated that the house exhibits an excellent level of historic integrity. However, staff
questioned the significance of the property to Fort Collins, as an undistinguished
example of a common building style in a setting whose integrity has been substantially
compromised.
Karen McWilliams explained that eligibility is determined by both significance and
integrity. While the integrity of the property would allow it to contribute to a possible
historic district, staff recommended the LPC find that its significance is not to the degree
that it would be for individual Landmark designation.
Ms. McWilliams reported that of the 28 front -gabled bungalows similar to this property in
the eight surrounding blocks, only eight would be individually eligible. The majority of
the buildings in the area are altered hipped -roofed Denver cottages, none of which
would be individually eligible, leading staff to believe the property in question was built
in 1921 to replace an earlier structure of a different style. The only alteration to the
structure is an addition to the rear elevation.
Barbara Siek explained that her company owns the 32-unit halfway house next door to
the Jordan House, and would like to improve the entire half of the block between Laurel
Street and the alley. She is proposing replacing the halfway house with a new
apartment building. If it is not found individually eligible, she would purchase the Jordan
House, donate it to the Humane Society for offices and move it to provide ample parking
Landmark Preservation Commission
Page 7
for the new apartments. If it is found eligible, she will not be able to afford redesigning
her apartment project to accommodate it. Joe Frank explained that this determination of
eligibility was triggered by the Demolition/Alteration Review process, which has yet to
begin formally.
Janet Ore suggested that the Jordan House was characteristic of a type of home in an
area associated with the people and the development of the University, which is of great
significance to the history and development of Fort Collins. Per Hogestad added that
while the setting and feeling has been compromised, the block is still recognizable as
residential. Joe Frank pointed out that the only issue is whether the Jordan House is
individually eligible; Myrne Watrous felt if it were in a different location, it would be
designated with no questions asked. Karen McWilliams said that Dr. Jordan, for whom
the house is named, was well-known but he only built the house, he didn't live in it.
Janet Ore argued that its significance has more to do with the broad historical
development of CSU, and the importance of a faculty member building next to campus
in 1921, than about Dr. Jordan per se. Ian Shuff pointed out the other side of the
argument, which is that without redevelopment, the house could fall into disrepair and
lose its integrity as well.
Public input: None
Myrne Watrous moved the LPC find the property at 631 S. Sherwood St. eligible
for individual Landmark designation. Agnes Dix seconded, and the motion carried
unanimously, 6-0.
Janet Ore stated that while she didn't want to stand in the way of a development project,
the LPC must make decisions based on its criteria, and it is crucial for the Commission
to be consistent. Joe Frank added that the applicant can appeal the LPC's decision to
City Council and instructed Karen McWilliams to outline the procedure to the applicant
after the meeting.
Meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m
Respectfully submitted by
Kate Jeracki. Recorder