Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 03/14/2001LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Special Meeting March 14, 2001 Minutes Council Liaison: Scott Mason (226-4824) Staff Liaison: Joe Frank (221-6376) Commission Chairperson: Per Hogestad (416-7285) SUMMARY OF MEETING: The LPC approved the request that black structural glass be used on the College Avenue storefronts and that the Northern Hotel sign be returned to the 1936 design, consistent with the Art Deco look of the rest of the building. The LPC approved changes of the Preston Farm Farmhouse roofing material and the placement of a ramp for handicapped accessibility on the property at 4605 S. County Rd. 9. The LPC recommended that the City Council rescind the designation of the garage at 5529 S. Timberline Road from the Ft. Collins local landmark registry. The LPC considered the designs for alley houses to be built at 2081214 Peterson St, and recommended that several properties receive the annual Fort Collins "Friend of Preservation" Award. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: W.J. "Bud" Frick called the meeting to order at 5:37 p.m., at 281 North College Avenue. Commission members Angela Milewski, Janet Ore, Agnes Dix, Myme Watrous, W.J. "Bud" Frick, and Angie Aguilera were present. Per Hogestad was absent. Carol Tunner, Karen McWilliams and Joe Frank represented staff. GUESTS: Nancy Kinney, citizen for 208/214 E. Peterson; Karen Gerard and Bill Simpson, Funding Partners, for Northern Hotel; Alyson McGee, Project Manager for Preston Farm; Donald Smith, Project Manager for 208/214 Peterson; and Rayno and Patty Seasor and Jeff Nowak for 5529 S. Timberline Road. AGENDA REVIEW: No changes. STAFF REPORTS: 1) Ms. Tunner handed out the New Board and Commission manuals. 2) Announcement of masonry forum; Ms. Tunner will try to attend and bring back information to the Commission. 3) National Historic Preservation week — May 13- 19. A tour of the Nelson Milkhouse and City Streetcar barn will be held this year to celebrate Colorado Historic Preservation Month in Ft. Collins. COMMISSION MEMBERS' REPORTS: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Page three, halfway down in the complimentary review. Change location of word "basements" to be closer to "buildings" so it doesn't appear that the basements are Landmark Preservation Commission March 14, 2001 Meeting Minutes Page 2 under the garages. Motion by Ms. Aguilera to approve minutes with the suggested change. Ms. Milewski seconded the motion. Passed unanimously, 6-0. CURRENT REVIEW: 1) 172 N. College — Northern Hotel. Changes to Final Review (Hotel Sign and Fagade Structural Glass). Staff Report: Staff recommended the change to black glass on the College Avenue storefronts. Regarding the sign, Ms. Tunner felt that the current sign should be restored and replaced on the building. The LPC needs to determine which sign was from the most important period of the building? The old sign was up for only 5-15 yrs. This indicates that the first sign was not there long enough to gain significance. The current, larger sign is a recognizable Ft. Collins landmark. While there is evidence to reconstruct the 1936 sign, the current sign is also historic. Saving the current sign is more in keeping with Secretary's Standard #4 which says that "changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved." On February 13, 1948, a loan was taken out to remodel the hotel. It is believed that the most recent, larger, sign was added at that time. It also survived the mid 1970s code changes when the owner fought to save it. Mr. Dennison passed around photographs and pictures of the Hotel and the past signs that have been on it. Gary Dennison of Vaught -Frye Architects, and Karen Gerard, Northern Hotel, presented their request for the changes. Aoolicant's R Some black structural glass was found in the basement of the Northern Hotel. They originally thought that they could not replace this glass, but Mr. Dennison has since found some structural glass made in Czechoslovakia that is very similar to the original structural glass, but a bit thinner. Ms. Dix moved to change the plans to the Northern Hotel, approving the use of black structural glass on the fagade. Ms. Aguilera seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Discussion of the requested sign change: Mr. Dennison said that the current sign was deemed to be a historically significant contributing factor, and is a modification of the old sign. Evidence was found that the large Northern piece was placed on the 1936 "Hotel" part. When the sign was removed for repair, they found holes in the smaller horizontal piece that appear to have been holders for neon lights on the 1936 sign. Mr. Dennison wants to modify the existing sign to look like the 1936 version of the sign, as he considers it to be an interesting example of a Deco sign. Details include a rounded top / Landmark Preservation Commisso • March 14, 2001 Meeting Minutes Page 3 and neon wrapping around the front edge, different lettering style, and horizontal lines through the sign — these details are all Deco in design. They would like to remove the large "Northern" on top and the smaller piece that was added at the bottom. Photographic evidence will allow them to restore the sign to be very similar to the original Deco design. They would like to add the rounded "Mohawk" detail at the top, and replace the neon lights that edged the "Northern" piece. These changes are requested so that the building and sign will be restored to its 1936 look. They have studied the Guidelines and Standards and would like to conform with these specific ones: Guideline #1) Reconstruction of portions of original buildings may be appropriate if sufficient documentation exists. The historic character of a building will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. The owners feel that the 1936 version is more attractive, and if this Commission had been present when the first sign change was proposed, they may not have allowed it. Furthermore, the 1936 version will be consistent in design with the rest of the building, once the renovation is complete. Ms. Gerard, representing the developer, Funding Partners, indicated that no 50-year rule exists for instances like this. 50 years has been a ballpark, but is not a rigid rule. Ms. Watrous asked how large signs fall into the current sign ordinance. Mr. Dennison replied that once the sign is designated as a contributing factor and historically significant, it is no longer regulated by the sign ordinance. Ms. Gerard also indicated that none of the designations actually mention the sign. The building was declared historically significant, not the sign specifically. The sign has changed several times. Ms. Gerard said that, as part of the ownership group of the building, would like to support the request to return the sign to the 1936 look. She restated that the building has been added to at various times. She feels that the highest priority seems to be that they should pick the period to restore the building to, and be consistent with that look. The 1936 sign contributes to the effect that they want to create. Ms. Watrous: The commission speaks for the property, and as someone who speaks for the property, she does not want to stick the building with the later "clunky looking" sign. Ms Ore replied that the current sign has been determined to be contributing, but the other sign is also historic. By allowing the newer sign to be removed, historic fabric will be removed. She suggested that the Commission be clear on what guidelines to follow. Mr. Frick: The Commission, in this case, determines which of conflicting criteria will be followed. Landmark Preservation Commission March 14, 2001 Meeting Minutes Page 4 Ms. Ore: An actual criteria must be followed — the decision should not simply be based on which sign the Commission prefers aesthetically. Ms. Milewski added that it is an interpretation issue. There are conflicting criteria, so the Commission must decide which criteria is of primary importance. Ms. Dix wanted to know how much of the current sign will be destroyed. Ms. Ore added that because some parts of the sign that will be removed have been determined to be significant, the Commission must have good reason to decide as they do, and cannot base its decision on only the aesthetic factors. Citizen input: Alyson McGee: As a member of the public, she wanted to add that taking the sign back to its 1936 style seems to be a better interpretation of the building style as it is being returned to a Deco look. Ms. Gerard said that they had come to the LPC last Fall to have the current sign determined historically contributing, in order for Building Inspection to allow them to take it down for repairs and put it back up. Once it was down, they found proof part of the 1936 sign was there, but like a catch-22, now the current sign was significant, so they had to keep it. They would like to restore the 1936 sign now that they know most of it is there. Mr. Frick: In the 1936 sign, it looks like the bottom of the sign was painted white; two white stripes with a black stripe in the middle. Ms. Milewski: If you pull the sign from the building and look at it separately, it appears that the more appropriate treatment of the sign is a restoration to the 1936 version. Quoting from Restoration as a Treatment, "When the property's design, architectural, or historical significance during a particular period of time outweighs the Restoration, this may be considered as a treatment." Ms. Ore: It's more a restoration than it is a rehabilitation. It would be better to have a 1936 sign on a 1936 building. Motion by Ms. Milewski. Whereas the LPC has previously considered the existing sign to be a contributing element to the historic hotel and has significance in its own right, while now there is clear evidence that it was a modification of the 1936 sign, I move that, given the photographic and physical evidence, the LPC approves the request to restore the sign back to its 1936 style. Motion seconded by Ms. Aguilera. A friendly amendment by Ms. Janet Ore and seconded by Ms. Aguilera added justification, "using Old Town Guideline #1, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Treatments for Restoration of Historic Buildings." Another friendly amendment was agreed to be added by Ms. Ore and Ms. Aguilera -- a change Landmark Preservation Commist • March 14, 2001 Meeting Minutes Page 5 from the submitted plan for the 1936 sign restoration was noted, that the bottom of the sign should have a black stripe. Motions approved unanimously, 6-0. 2) 4605 S. County Rd. 9 (Ziegler Road.) Preston Farm — Changes to Final Approval to Farmhouse (Roof Material and Handicapped Accessibility) Ms. Tunner introduced Alyson McGee, representing Preston Farm. Ms. McGee requested some changes to the Final Approval of Preston Farm, including a ramp to allow handicapped accessibility to the farmhouse, and a change of the approved roofing material. The roof of the house currently has two asphalt layers over cedar. The owners planned to remove the three layers and install a new cedar roof, but now would like to change that installation to architectural asphalt roofing. The selected product is Tamko Heritage Series, laminated asphalt shingles in weather wood color. Regarding the addition of a ramp for handicapped accessibility, they have found that a ramp was better than a lift because not everyone knows how to use a lift and it is therefore not truly accessible to everyone. The existing stone planter will block much of the ramp from view, resulting in a fairly attractive appearance. The ramp will also be able to be removed if the farm goes back to being a residential building. This satisfies Standard 10, regarding reversible changes. Ms Dix asked several questions; Is there a break in the planter? Will the planter be changed significantly? Will the changes made to the planter also be reversible? Ms. McGee replied that the planter has been determined to be significant. They may not want to make any changes to the planter, thinking that it will be better to use landscaping instead. Ms. Aguilera moved to approve the changes to the restoration of the Preston Farm farmhouse, with the addition that the planter not be altered and recommend that the roof be 40-year materials. Motion seconded by Ms. Ore and approved unanimously, 6-0. 3) 5529 Timberline Road, Gill/Nelson Farm — Disposition of Designated Garage. Ms. Milewski announced a conflict of interests and removed herself for the decision. Representing BHA design, she moved to present materials on 5529 Timberline Rd. Landmark Preservation Commission March 14, 2001 Meeting Minutes Page 6 Ms. Tunner stated that on October 11, 2000, the LPC gave permission to move the designated garage on the Gill/Nelson farm backwards in the west direction, in order to provide fire department access to the farmhouse and stone outbuilding. Since then, it has come to light that there is a previously granted easement on that side of the property that may preclude that move. The owners, Patty and Rayno Seasor and Jeff Nowak, passed around several simulated scenarios of how the garage would look elsewhere on the property. Ms. Milewski: This has become an issue at the last minute, and all of the solutions they have found raise difficulties. Three structures on the site were included in the designation, the main brick house, the milk house, and the garage. All around the sides, the property has been separated from the surrounding properties by a 6-ft privacy fence. The current location of the garage is very imposing and detracts from the property as a whole. However, an access easement precludes moving the garage as previously approved. Three alternatives have been considered. 1) Remove the garage completely. It is newer than the other buildings, but it has significance as part of the collection of buildings. 2) By removing one of the trees, it would be possible to move the garage to the south. However, the size of the garage would change the view from southbound Timberline, blocking much of the view of the front of the house. 3) Move the garage over and 90 degrees, so that it faces the second drive to the house. This will block the view of the milkhouse from the drive; only the house and the garage will be seen until you are well onto the property. Mr. Frick suggested a 4th alternative of changing the location of the parking lot, putting the garage further to the east, and making the drive curve around it. Ms. Milewski responded that the property is too narrow for this. Ms. Watrous asked if the garage will be used for cars or for storage? If the garage is removed, will it need to be replaced with another garage? Ms. Milewski responded that, because the property will not be residential, it will not require a garage for the storage of cars. Citizen input: Mr. Jeff Nowak. owner of Gill/Nelson Farm, said that they would like to keep the garage but their priority is the house and the stonehouse. Discussion: Ms. Ore asked for clarification about the alternatives. The only options are to move it to where it will affect the significance of the house and milkhouse, or to remove the garage completely. This means that a decision must be made to either compromise the house and milkhouse or to remove the garage. Landmark Preservation Commis • March 14, 2001 Meeting Minutes Page 7 Mr. Frick suggested that it might be possible to move it to the southwest comer, but it will have to be taken apart to move it there. Ms. Ore replied that by moving it to the other spaces, it would impact the view significantly enough that it would compromise the other buildings. Ms. Watrous asked why it would be beneficial to move it to the southwest comer where it will not be very accessible and out of sight. Ms. Milewski added that the owners were going to move it and repaint it, not restore it. This means that it will still be decaying. Ms. Aguilera moved that, based on pre-existing conditions over which we have no control and since the alternative solutions would have a negative impact on the remaining historic structures' integrity, the commission feels that, regretfully, the best solution in this case is to recommend to City Council to rescind the designation of the garage at 5529 S. Timberline Road (and only the garage) from the Ft. Collins local landmark registry. If Council approves rescinding the designation, the property owners are free to remove the building as they see fit. Motion seconded by Ms. Dix and approved unanimously, 6-0. Ms. Milewski rejoined the Commission. DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1) 208/214 Peterson St. Complimentary Review of Infill Construction in National Register District. Ms. McWilliams introduced Mr. Don Smith, of Rocky Mountain Construction Management, who has come before the Commission several times before regarding these infill properties. He has proposed that two 800 sq. ft. alley houses be built on the property. Mr. Smith had a meeting with the owner and they both support the new design. If the Commission approves this plan, Mr. Smith will be coming before the Commission to gain support for a variance in lot size requirements so that the City allows the two alley houses to be built on the property, and the property be subdivided into four separate lots. Zoning will allow a duplex, but both staff and the applicant feel that this design is superior and Mr. Smith hopes that a variance will be allowed. The proposed houses are very small, and are no higher than the other small houses in the neighborhood. A previous CPC review made several suggestions and Mr. Smith has followed all of them. The homes will have 3 bedrooms, 2 X2 baths. The roof pitches and slopes were changed to created a gabled entry, with a gable on the streetside as well. The front windows were also changed. Mr. Smith believes that by Landmark Preservation Commission .� March 14, 2001 Meeting Minutes Page 8 working together, he and the Commission have come up with a better design than they otherwise would have had. They have been able to save the large apple tree and an open space in the middle of the property. The walk through the property will probably meander, as opposed to being a straight walkway. Mr. Smith would like the Commission's approval of his design, and also would like the Commission's support for a variance from the City to allow for a reduction in the lot requirements, rather than the required 5000 sq. ft. lot for these houses. The Commission feels that these are good designs for alley houses, and would serve as a good role model for the city. The Commission would like staff to draft a letter to the City supporting Mr. Smith's request to the City to allow for a variance. Citizen Input: Ms. Kinney said that these designs look very nice. If they must build, this is a good design. The residents have been a little bit worried about the houses becoming rentals, but this cannot be helped. The Commission was also asked that, when dealing with houses this old and structurally unsound, might the Commission allow the destruction of the house with the stipulation that a new house be built that looks just like the old one. Mr. Smith added that when houses are marginal, some of them not worth saving. In those cases, however, if the Commission wants them saved, he would be willing to grant some funding that would allow them to be moved. 2) Friend of Preservation Award Ms. Tunner showed slides of recipients of past Friend of Preservation awards. Pictures were also shown with of suggestions for this year. These included The Armory, 251 Linden, The Nelson Milkhouse, Art Modeme House-237 West Street, 227 Wood Street, Moseman House -- 324 E. Oak. Houses to receive awards this year: Moseman House — 324 E. Oak Street (CSU), 227 Wood Street (David Rowan), Art Modeme House — 237 West Street, 251 Linden Street (Doug Gennetten), The Armory (Paul Jensen). For next year, the Commission suggests considering Mr. Don Smith for his house restoration and alley house designs. Also, the Trolley Barn, the Gill -Nelson House, C&S Depot, and the Nelson Milk House (Parks and Rec. Dept.). OTHER BUSINESS: No other business. Meeting adjourned: 8:40 p.m. Minutes submitted by Connie Merrill, secretary.