Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 02/14/2001• LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting February 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 reviewed the design for the downtown Transfort Kiosk and plans for the rehabilitation of the carriage house at 700 Remington Street. The LPC discussed the 2001 Landmark Rehabilitaton Loan Program Applications. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Per Hogestad called the meeting to order at 5:40 p.m. at 281 North College Avenue. Commission members Angie Aguilera, Janet Ore, Agnes Dix, Angela Milewski, Myrne Watrous, and W.J. "Bud" Frick were present. No Commission members were absent. Carol Tunner and Timothy Wilder represented staff. GUESTS: Linda Dowlen, Smart Trips Director, Bob Ballentine, Genesis Laboratory Systems Inc., for the Transfort Kiosk; Charles Nacos, owner of 700 Remington St.; David Alciatore, owner of the Price Paired Home, 626 S. Meldrum; Lori Thompson, owner of 623 Matthews; Mary Humstone, Historic Fort Collins Development Corporation, and Dave and Patty Lawson, owners, for Preston Farm. AGENDA REVIEW: No changes. STAFF REPORTS: Ms. Tunner distributed the City Budget page for consideration by the Commission. Timothy Wilder, City Planner, presented an update on the proposed downtown river corridor. The City has granted $25,000 for a historical architectural survey of the old fort site and a matching grant for $10,000_has been obtained. COMMISSION MEMBERS' REPORTS: none. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: In the January 24 minutes, under Staff Reports, Ms. Ore and Ms. Dix did not take copies of the Draft State Plan to review, but received them in the mail. Also in the last paragraph of the first page, the last sentence "Additionally....... should be moved up to be the second sentence in that paragraph in order to make better sense. Ms. Dix moved to approve the minutes with corrections. Seconded by Ms. Aguilera and passed unanimously (7-0). CONSENT AGENDA: Transfort Kiosk item pulled from Consent Agenda by Ms. Dix. Landmark Preservation Commission February 14, 2001 Meeting Minutes Page 2 DISCUSSION ITEMS: TRANSFORT KIOSK (Linda Dowlen, Smart Trips Director) Ms. Linda Dowlen presented the current design for the downtown Transfort Kiosk. It will consist of a semi -circular shade over a flat kiosk. The scalloped edges of the shade will hang down below the awning frame, which will be sufficiently strong to carry 8.5 inches of wet snow. Mr. Bob Ballentine, representing the manufacturer, Genesis Laboratory Systems, Inc., asked if the Commission would prefer a flat canvas back with inside steel structure or a powder coat steel frame with canvas backing. The Commission determined that the preferable design would have an anodized aluminum backed awning, powder coated green to match the canvas. Ms. Watrous asked if any of these kiosks would be set up at the mall. Ms. Dowlen replied that as the project was bid out, the bids exceeded the original grant, so only the downtown kiosk would be put into place though others may be possible in the future. Ms. Dowlen pointed out that the staff report was incorrect, and the approved color will be "rust texture" (T091-BR47) with a hammered finish. Mr. Frick requested a shop drawing for the record, with the final design and approved colors. There was no public input. Ms. Milewski moved to approve the identified colors, anodized aluminum backed awning, powder coated green to match the canvas, as submitted. This was seconded by Ms. Dix, and approved unanimously (7-0). CURRENT REVIEW: 700 Remington St. (Charles Nacos, owner) Mr. Charles Nacos presented for review plans for the rehabilitation of the carriage house in back of the Laurel Street Inn, 700 Remington St. The house currently has no foundation and sits directly on the ground. Windows will be restored as shown in the drawing. Doors will be repaired and fixed in place, another window will be added (evidence is present that a window was once there) and a new asphalt roof will be put on. The ball cap object on the roof will be replaced after re -roofing. Mr. Nacos plans to put a footing underneath the structure, raising it and putting cement block underneath. The structure will sit 1-2 feet higher than at present, to give an 8400t ceiling height inside. The amount of cement block underneath the structure will depend on how much rotten wood will have to be removed. The interior will remain one room, with a small loft area over the bathroom (to be installed). The large front garage doors will be repaired and put back into place, but will be fixed closed. The door design there is still under question. Because the building will be raised, the doors will have to be lowered and redesigned. The Commission suggested the doors be lowered, but making sure the bottom of the doors are off the ground, and using infill siding above them. Landmark Preservation Commission February 14, 2001 Meeting Minutes Page 3 The man door design is also still under question. The current man door has been covered with plywood. The raising of the building requires redesign of this door as well. The Commission made the suggestion to add a transom above it. Mr. Frick suggested adding additional framing along the bottom instead of adding additional concrete block, which will show at the bottom of the structure. The replacement for the man door should be compatible with the style of the building, but does not have to be a restoration of the existing door. The window on east elevation will be restored and skylights will be added. There was no public input. Ms. Ore moved to approve final review with the following conditions: 1) Add transom window above man door. 2) Rehabilitation of existing man door, or replacement with a new door in keeping with the style of the existing door. 3) Retain existing small window on east elevation 4) Infill lap siding around top of garage door. 5) New siding overall will match the existing siding, so there will be no exposed concrete block to within 6 inches of the ground. 6) Retain ornamental roof ball cap features. The motion was seconded by Ms. Milewski and passed unanimously (7-0). DISCUSSION ITEMS: Local Rehabilitation 2001 Loan Program Review (Timothy Wilder, City Planner) Mr. Timothy Wilder, outlined the following procedures for the Local Rehabilitation 2001 Loan Program: 1) Staff report on proposed projects 2) Applicant testimony 3) LPC questions 4) Scoring 5) Compilation of results The scoring is based on four criteria: 1) Foster Rehabilitation of Resource, 2) Demonstrate Preservation Necessity or Threat, 3) Demonstrate Resource Significance, and 4) Amount of Leveraged Funds. During the next meeting, further analyses of the projects in question, their ranking and funding will be disclosed. At that time, more applicant testimony will be invited, and lastly, the funding allocation decisions will be finalized. Ms. Milewski declared a conflict of interest and withdrew from the Loan Program Review. LOAN APPLICATIONS: Power Plant and Art Deco Fountain, 400 N. College Avenue. (CSU will accept partial funding.) Repair/replace fountain features including gargoyles, terra cotta Landmark Preservation Commission February 14, 2001 Meeting Minutes Page 4 blocks, water basin, base or gargoyle, obelisk, reservoir and fountain. Loan request, $5,000, matching funds, $32,575. Discussion: Ms. Watrous asked if CSU will be able to repair the power plant and fountain even if they don't receive a loan from the program. Mr. Wilder replied that this is not generally taken into consideration in the criteria for determining which application has greatest merit. It could, however, be taken into consideration within Criterion 2: "degree of threat will be based upon the negative effects of an existing or future action or condition that may diminish the integrity of the property's location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling or association." Determination of Commission: Criterion 1 —very high. Criterion 2 — the fountain is not functioning, and the spalling indicates that water is getting behind the exterior. These structures are in jeopardy and therefore this loan application is also high on criterion 2. Criteria 3 — National register quality, these structures have high resource significance. Definition requested for "spalled glazing" — terra cotta (or surface) is flaking off. Mercer Building (Lindens), 208 Linden St. (Owners will accept partial funding.) Repair/replace parapet wall. Loan request, $4,200, matching funds, $4,200. Criteria 1 — Commission feels that this is not very high. Criteria 2 — Without repair, damage will continue. The building is clearly deteriorating and needs structural help. The owners, however, are not addressing the structural problems. The application does not address the underlying problem. Criteria 3 — No discussion. S.A. Johnson House, 623 Matthews. (Owners will accept partial funding.) Porch restoration and exterior painting. Loan request, $4,800, matching funds $4,800. Owner testimony by Lori Thompson: The adjustment on door will be done per the Commission's previous recommendation. The owner is committed to doing the repairs and has brought the changes before the commission for design review (approved for final review). Criteria 1 — Strong effort to return this building to its historic appearance. The changes proposed are aesthetic rather than structural. Criteria 2 — No structural issues. Criteria 3 — Not as significant as many of the other structures under consideration. It contributes to the district but on its own does not contribute significantly. Price Paired Home, South Unit, 626 S. Meldrum St.. (Owner will accept partial funding.) Repair front porch overhang and columns, replace section of bricks on west 0 Landmark Preservation Commission February 14, 2001 Meeting Minutes Page 5 side, rebuild coal chute, replace screens with combo storms, replace door, pour concrete in foundation crawl space. Loan request, $5,000, matching funds, $5,500. Owner testimony by David Alciatore: The cedar shingles have rotted and there is much rotted wood. Plans have been developed to add flashing in order to keep water away from the wood. The column bases are totally rotted and the columns have started to pull away from overhand and sink. Without repair further damage will result. The window in the rear of the house was resized when the kitchen was remodeled and the bricks used do not match the rest of the structure. They will be replaced with original extra bricks that were stored in the basement and with some bricks that were taken removed while lowering the chimney. On the east side of the house, the coal chute frame is rotted and lid needs to be rebuilt. Kevin Murray of Empire Carpentry has agreed to do the work. The rebuilt coal chute will be nearly identical to the original, but a window will be added. The back porch wood screen frames are rotting and the screens are deteriorating. These will be replaced. The owner also plans to repair the stone foundation, comers and crawl space. Concrete will be poured to firm up the foundation, as the comer is currently unstable. Mr. Frick suggested that this would not solve the problem; the comer must be shored up in a different way to be effective. The Commission may desire to delete this request from the application. Criterion 1 — Not a great deal of structural improvement has been discussed. The proposed changes are primarily cosmetic. Criterion 2 — The structure will continue to deteriorate without rehabilitation. Again, however, the proposed changes are largely cosmetic. Criterion 3 — Consistent with last year's decision, this structure has fairly high resource significance. Asmus Signs (Owners will accept partial funding.) Replace roof with membrane system. Loan request, $3,000, matching funds, $3,650. Criterion 1 — the owners have suggested a roofing change that will protect the building, and will not be in the public view. Criteria 2 — The proposed repairs will fix the leaking roof. This is important, but is a maintenance issue. Criteria 3 — Consistent with last year's decision. Gil -Nelson Farm House. (Owners will accept partial funding.) Stonehouse: repair wood shingle roof, tuck point, rebuild window frames, repair, restore, paint eaves, replace door. Garage: prep and paint. Loan request, $4,637, matching funds, $4,637. Criterion 1 — This house will come under design review, so many of the issues as to the appearance of the house will be considered in the future. Criterion 2 — Not higher than the others under consideration. Landmark Preservation Commission February 14, 2001 Meeting Minutes Page 6 Criterion 3 — Consistent with previous decision. Unique building, analogous to the Price Paired House. Preston Farm Historic District, 4605 S. County Road 9. (Owners will accept partial funding.) Granary: foundation work, replace sill, straighten/brace. Loan request, $5,000, matching funds, $7,500. Testimony by Mary Humstone and owners, Dave and Patty Lawser: This loan request will be used along with a State Historical Fund Grant. Preston Farm was approved the previous Friday for the National Register for Historic Places. The granary is actually a grain elevator, as it has the needed machinery to be considered an elevator. The builder, designer, Ben Preston, was a Civil Engineer and developed a very interesting type of elevator. The granary is particularly interesting, as there are old grain prices written in the elevator. Criterion 1 — The applicants have made great efforts to restore the farm to its historic appearance. Criterion 2 — Structural repairs needed for the integrity of the grain elevator. Criterion 3 — This has now been approved for the National Register for Historic Places and is exceptional. No other business. Meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m. Minutes submitted by Connie Merrill.