Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 11/15/2000LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting November 15, 2000 Minutes Council Liaison: Scott Mason (226-4824) Staff Liaison: Joe Frank (221-6376) Commission Chairperson: Per Hogestad (303-292-1875) SUMMARY OF MEETING: Staff conducted a training session for the LPC involving a presentation by Bricklmaging, a resurfacing system for masonry color match repairs. The Hottel/Hoffman House at 426 East Oak was recommended by the LPC for Fort Collins Landmark designation. The eligibility for designation of the Sears Trostel Lumber Building, 351 Linden Street, was evaluated and the LPC determined that the building was not eligible. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Per Hogestad called the meeting to order at 5:38 p.m., at 625 Ninth Street, the City of Fort Collins Streets Facility. Commission members Angie Aguilera, Agnes Dix, Angela Milewski, Bud Frick and Janet Ore were present. Rande Pouppirt was absent. Carol Tunner, Karen McWilliams, Timothy Wilder and Joe Frank represented staff. GUESTS: Rheba Massey, Local History Coordinator, Karen Joslin, President of Historic Fort Collins Development Corporation, Myrne Watrous, citizen, Norm Evans, President of Poudre Landmarks Foundation, Jay Hardy, DDA Director, Loren Maxey, President of the Fort Collins Historical Society, Bill Sears, Sears Trostel Building owner, and Mikal Torgerson, architect, for Sears Trostel Lumber Yard; Sandra Scaffidi, historic preservation intern; Travis Beckwith, historic preservation student; Jim Greenacre and Bob Homolka of Bricklmaging; Katherine Acott, owner of 426 E. Oak St. AGENDA REVIEW: No changes. STAFF REPORTS: Ms. Tunner passed out a recent Denver Post article by Joanne Ditmer on "Making History." She described how Denver would be deciding in December on creating a downtown historic district. It designates 45 separate significant buildings in what they are calling a "chocolate chip" cookie district. There are no inclusive district boundaries per se, but the district addresses specific buildings like chips in a cookie. Ms. Tunner passed out info on a Restoration & Renovation Conference in January in Washington, D.C. She also passed out a synopsis of the year's historic preservation federal legislation from the National Trust. COMMISSION MEMBERS' REPORTS: Ms. Milewski said that she would be going to the DDA meeting tomorrow to talk about the LPC's new loan program for historic preservation. Landmark Preservation Comn n • November 15, 2000 Meeting Mmutes Page 2 TRAINING: Jim Greenacre introduced Bob Homolka, owner and supplier of Brick Imaging. Mr. Homolka gave a presentation on a product they market to stain brick and mortar to match any color required. After the power point presentation, Mr. Hogestad asked how they handle doing a large wall. Mr. Homolka said they paint it on, but the product is actually a stain. Mr. Hogestad asked how they do mortar? Mr. Homolka said that they use 1/2" tape to mask the mortar joints out. DESIGNATIONS: 1.) 426 East Oak (Katherine and Phillip Acott) Ms. McWilliams presented the designation of the Andrew Hottel/John Hoffman House at 426 E. Oak St. She explained that the house has architectural significance for its exceptional Victorian/Italianate architecture, and historical significance in that it was built by the Hottels, an early pioneer and entrepreneurial family in Fort Collins. There is some question of the exact built date, but it is probably 1886. In 1892, the house was bought by the John Hoffman family. The applicants, the Acotts, do not want to designate the chicken coop and garage on the property. Ms. Acott did say, however, that they did not rule out future designation of the outbuildings. Ms. Ore asked if it was possible for the LPC to ignore the outbuildings in the designation. Mr. Hogestad said that they all looked to be the same age. He asked how many outbuildings there were. Ms. Acott said a chicken coop and a gabled shed. She said they might construct a new garage eventually. Mr. Hogestad said that in the past the LPC has just designated the house on the property, and if the owners wanted to designate outbuildings the LPC would do so. Mr. Hogestad asked for public input. Rheba Massey, interested citizen and City local history coordinator, said that the 1948 tax assessor's records have the outbuildings listed, so they are at least 50 years old. Mr. Hogestad noted that the owners might consider listing them in the future. Ms. Ore commented that the entire property is unique because all together it shows how people lived. There aren't many of these complete homesteads left intact - it is illustrative of the times. Ms. Milewski told the owners that designating the house is great and we understand you may wish to add a garage. Mr. Frick moved for landmark designation of the Hottel/Hoffman House at 426 E. Oak St. •Ms. Dix seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-0. DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY: Reconsideration of Eligibility for Designation of the Sears Trostel Lumber Building, 351 Linden Street (Bill Sears, Owner; Mikal Torgerson, Architect) Ms. McWilliams described this hearing as a reconsideration of the Sears Trostel Lumber Yard Building's eligibility for designation. The building has been determined in a survey done in 1992 to have historical importance, but not architectural significance. She said the building has had several modifications to it, and in April 1974, the front facade was changed with dormers added and shake shingles. Its importance is tied to the interior Landmark Preservation Comn*n • November 15, 2000 Meeting Minutes Page 3 layout and use. Once the lumberyard business leaves, much of its significance will be gone. She said staff recommends finding the property not eligible. Mr. Bill Sears, the building owner, described how it looked in historic photos. The back of the building was added on to several times. He said that today it has two dormers and a shake roof. A lot of industrial piping has been added and an overhead garage door. The original building is a sloping roof and then there were two large additions made behind that portion. He described the building as obsolete. Only the electrical meets code requirements. The brick fagade is cracked and the roof has structural problems. There is also an insurance problem — no one will insure it in its present condition. A fire occurred a few years ago. The building department could condemn a portion of it, but hasn't because the business is moving out soon. It will become vacant. Mr. Sears said he plans to have the building's significance recorded in an approved historic preservation manner, and he will cooperate with an archeological inspection of the site. He wishes to get on with making a living through a new building. Ms. Ore asked if the brick was new siding? Mr. Sears did not know. She asked if the windows are the same? Mr. Sears said some were damaged and were replaced. Mr. Hogestad noted that you could see several additions had been made to the back of the building. Mr. Hogestad asked if the building appearance really conveyed its use. Ms. Ore said is it the vision of a lumberyard? Mr. Hogestad added to her question "knowing it will no longer be a lumberyard?" Ms. Ore said she believed the integrity of the building is important. Mr. Frick asked if it was integrity of the building or fagade, and then he said that the integrity of the building is marginal. Mr. Hogestad called for public input. Ms. Rheba Massey handed out copies of a speech, including excerpts from the Historic Resources Preservation Program (HRPPP), an article "Whither Historic Contexts? Their Role in 21"-Century Planning" from CRM magazine, an article on adaptive reuse of industrial buildings in Granville Island, Vancouver, and a 1929 Fort Collins Express Courier newspaper article on the opening of the Trostel Lumber Company, "New Lumber Business is Ready to Go." (These materials are attached as part of these minutes.) Ms. Massey said that she was not there to debate the building's eligibility, but she was there to advocate using the historic preservation process to determine the eligibility of the lumberyard building. In 1992 the LPC and staff developed a process to determine significance using historic contexts. From there she followed the attached speech. She feels that we have no information to answer the questions that she asked. She said the Auntie Stone Cabin had been moved many times but it still has integrity because it is the last remaining building from the old fort site. The Sears Trostel Lumberyard is the last remaining recognizable historic lumberyard, and as such, she believes it is eligible as an individual local landmark. She pointed out that the 1929-newspaper article showed that the brick fagade is original, only the dormers and shakes have been added. She said that the purpose of the Historic Resources Preservation Program Plan of 1992 was to avoid this sort of demolition. She said we surveyed the building in 1992, and it Landmark Preservation Comrten • August 9, 2000 Meeting Minutes Page 4 was important then. She said that she has never heard of a building being determined ineligible because the use was going to change. Then she described Vancouver and its industrial buildings, which were saved no matter the condition, and reused. Finally, she urged the LPC to use historic contexts and use the HRPPP to make their determination. Ms. Myrne Watrous, citizen and member of a longtime pioneer family, said she recently looked through the Sears Trostel building. First off, she is sorry to see that such an important business is leaving. She thinks the only reason that they are leaving is because Mr. Sears wants to build a new building on the site. She understands it is a 5 million -dollar business and it should stay. Mr. Mika] Torgerson, architect for Mr. Sears, said the building doesn't fall under the City Land Use Code, which requires architectural importance for a building. He asked if the potential for a historic district was worth keeping the building? Ms. Ore said that architecture is only one criterion. She explained that Ms. Massey was making an argument that the building contributes to an understanding of Fort Collins' history. Mr. Torgerson said that the fire Marshall and building department have serious problems and to bring it up to code would change it in the remodeling. People doors would be required and natural light — more windows. The historic context would be modified. Ms. Ore said that the building code issue is separate. Ms. Karen Joslin, President of Historic Fort Collins Development Corporation, said that she was there to caution the LPC that the fagade may turn up as significant — but the appropriate criteria isn't known yet. She handed out a letter of their position, which is attached to these minutes. She said that this is the location of the birthplace of the City. It is a visual link between the river and Old Town. There are other things going on: 1. The National Park Service is still surveying the river bank, 2. City Staff is planning to survey the area, 3. The HRPPP gives guidance on this through Appendix D, high preservation necessity and priority 1A of the Action Plan — Historic contexts have to be used, and that context is not written for this site. The Historic Conservation Area planning section suggests zoning district overlay zones. The general guidelines should be there to give a developer a heads up. She said her organization is asking for a moratorium on this eligibility decision to do the context, criteria, surveys, etc. for the building. She added that Historic Fort Collins Development Corp would like to participate; that they have experts to help. Mr. Frick said that since the HRPPP was done before City Plan, he asked if the overlay zone idea is in City Plan? Mr. Frank responded that the overlay zone concept in the HRPPP was a potential action that has not been implemented. We never developed a conservation district, but it could be developed by City Council. The land use code has strong standards without developing specific guidelines. Ms. Ore said that she is not convinced the building isn't eligible — this building could be significant as an industrial building, as part of a district, or on its own as a 1920s lumberyard industry. If it is the only one left and it still looks as it did, it could be significant. Ms. Hogestad asked even though it changes in appearance? Ms. Ore said yes. Ms. Dix stated that the LPC Landmark Preservation Comrrn • August 9, 2000 Meeting Minutes Page 5 doesn't have as much information as they need for a decision. Ms. Ore said it does look like the 1920s — a redetermination is based on loss of integrity, and it hasn't lost that quality. Mr. Frank explained that the land use code says the developer must preserve the building and find a new reuse for it, if you find that the building is eligible for landmarking. The problems surrounding this particular building are severe, insurance, code compliance, use moving away, etc. He asked what do you have left? The building is not architecturally significant. The eligibility for its historic use will no longer be there. Staff came to the conclusion that there has been a change of conditions since the survey in the early 1990s determined it eligible. There was a fire. It is a very unusual situation that a building is significant for historical significance and not architecture. Also, he said that redevelopment of the corridor there would be better served by a new building. Ms. Ore responded that the LPC is supposed to base their decision on their criteria. If the owners can show it is condemnable, that's different. Mr. Frank urged the LPC to look at the practicality of the situation. You have to take into consideration existing conditions and plans for it, and your criteria and what's happening around it. Mr. Hogestad interjected that we are in agreement that the architecture is not significant. Ms. Ore said we don't know that. It could be typical of a lumberyard. Ms. Dix added that it is the only example left in town that is recognizable. Ms. Ore said this is a contingent decision and we can't make that decision on every building or we'd have nothing left. Mr. Hogestad asked if there was any way to get more information? Ms. Ore asked if there was a district here, is the building typical of the district, if development is already in the works, are we seeing it at a late moment. Mr. Frank said that in a month or so the LPC will be seeing the redevelopment plans as a part of the development review process. Ms. McWilliams informed the group of the requirements of the land use code. The code requires buildings that are barely contributing to a district to be saved, and they may not be as important. This requirement can be changed, but not in time for this building. Mr. Frank stated that a redetermination of eligibility is the best way to get this resolved for this building. Ms. Milewski said we have to be reasonable. She feels uncomfortable determining this building designatable based on the LPC's criteria. The criteria are too narrow. Mr. Frank said that the land use code is very black and white with no distinction — if the building is individually eligible or eligible as a contributing building in a district, then it must be saved. This can cause great hardship for this building owner. He asked the LPC if they would want to non-consentually designate this building. Mr. Hogestad asked Mr. Sears if he knew what he had to do to bring the building up to code? How would it alter the building? Mr. Torgerson answered by listing changes to the skylights, windows, doors, structural, etc. Ms. Dix asked what original fabric would be left if it were brought up to code? Mr. Torgerson responded the skin of an old lumberyard and it wouldn't make economic sense. Mr. Hogestad said that the lumber bunks on the inside really define the building as a lumberyard more than the fagade, and he added that the LPC doesn't have control over the interior. He said he didn't J Landmark Preservation Comren • August 9, 2000 Meeting Minutes Page 6 think it has enough integrity and significance to make it an historic structure. Ms. Aguilera said she couldn't see how there will be enough left of the building to be historic. The owner would be paying taxes on a useless building. Again Mr. Hogestad repeated that the lumber bunks are most important to him — they convey the lumberyard more than the fagade's appearance. Mr. Frick moved that the Sears Trostel Lumberyard building at 351 Linden Street be redetermined to not be eligible for local Landmark or National Register status. Ms. Milewski seconded the motion. A voice vote was held: Aguilera-yes, Dix -nay, Milewski -yes, Hogestad-yes, Frick -yes, Ore -nay. Motion passed 4-2. Ms. Ore explained that she voted no because this determination is based on what may happen in the future, and the LPC shouldn't be doing that. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Meeting minutes taken by staff, Carol Tunner Submitted by Carol Tunner, Staff.