Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 09/13/2000f� �J LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting September 13, 2000 Minutes Council Liaison: Scott Mason (226-4824) Staff Liaison: Joe Frank (221-6376) Commission Chairperson: Per Hogestad (303-292-1875) SUMMARY OF MEETING: The Commission approved landmark designation for the Cal Johnson/Rigden Farm at 2902 Rigden Parkway on a 5-1 vote, and determined that the house and garage at 411 S. Whitcomb are eligible for Landmark status. Staff updated the Commission on the rehab! Iitation/adaptive reuse for the C&S Depot, 136 Laporte. The Commission gave final approval for the rehabilitation of the Armory at 314 E. Mountain, except for color, signage, rear ramp doors, front fagade window well and sidewalk coal chute, and courtyard gate. The motion was amended to include direction to the applicant to pursue permission to leave the entry door frame in place. Phase 1 (involving the wood sliding doors, corrugated metal roofing, and wood shutters cove siding boards) was approved for the Preston Farm Granary at 4605 S. County Rd. 9. The LPC heard a complimentary review of a proposed housing development project at Young's Pasture/Prospect Creek. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Per Hogestad called the meeting to order at 5:37 p.m., at 281 North College Avenue. Commission members Angie Aguilera, Agnes Dix, Bud Frick, Rande Pouppirt, and Janet Ore were present. Angela Milewski was excused. Carol Tunner, Karen McWilliams, and Joe Frank represented staff. GUESTS: Scott Mullen for 411 S. Whitcomb; Felix Rojas, for the Rigden Farm; Don Bundy and Glenn Konen, The Architect's Studio, Paul Jensen, owner for 314 E. Mountain; Dick Hill, AIA, for the Preston Farm Granary; Steve Olt, City Planner, Ray Kramer and John V. DeSousa, architects, John and Debra Applin, Pat Wilkins -Wells, Polly Puleston, Jan and Richard Devore, Veda and Per Hogestad, homeowners, and Leroy Cynkar and Ron Grace, developers, for Young's Pasture. AGENDA REVIEW: Ms. Tunner removed 136 Laporte, the C&S Depot, from design review and said a status report would be given instead. STAFF REPORTS: Ms. Tunner: 1) distributed "Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Treatments for Historic Properties" books to the LPC; 2) read a letter from Dan Corson, CHS CLG Coordinator complementing the LPC on their progressive work and adoption of the Secretary's Treatments. Ms. McWilliams announced that she had received a letter dated August 31 from the CHS that the Armstrong Hotel had been listed on the National Register. Landmark Preservation Commission September 13, 2000 Meeting Minutes Page 2 COMMISSION MEMBERS' REPORTS: None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The regular meeting of August 9 and the special meeting of August 31 minutes were approved by affirmation with no changes. HENRY JESSUP/CAL JOHNSON FARM, 2902 Rigden Parkway (Designation) Ms. McWilliams discussed the history of the Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm, including the reasons for its move. The LPC had previously determined, in a discussion before the buildings were moved, that the buildings would have architectural significance even after moving them. She said that the Rigden Farm project now has moved them off the corner of Timberline and Horsetooth Roads, back into the new development. They have maintained the same orientation but the buildings are closer together. Some foundation bricks of the house and one barn door were lost in the moving and have been replaced. The other, non -original barn door barn door was also replaced. The non -original overhead fiberglass garage door was also replaced. She showed slides of the buildings on the new site, and recommended designation of all the buildings based on their architectural significance. Mr. Pouppirt asked the age of the garage. Ms. McWilliams responded late 30s or early 40s. Ms. Dix questioned replacing the garage door. Ms. McWilliams said the one it replaced was not original, although she would have preferred the replacement be more in character to the age of the buildings. Mr. Frick noted that the replacement is better than the fiberglass one. Mr. Pouppirt moved to accept the landmark designation of the Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm at 2902 Rigden Parkway. Ms. Aguilera seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-1. Ms. Ore explained her nay vote by saying the farm had lost too much integrity and setting by the moving of the buildings. She felt that designating them was setting a bad precedent. Mr. Pouppirt expressed the opposite view, saying that they had done a great job to save the buildings. With the Timberline Road widening, it was the only solution. Mr. Hogestad summarized by saying that this was an unusual circumstance. 411 S. WHITCOMB STREET, DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR LOCAL LANDMARK STATUS (Scott Mullen for Bill Coulson, prospective owner) Ms. McWilliams described the house and introduced Scott Mullen, who is representing prospective buyer, Bill Coulson. Alterations to the house include an early c. 1920 rear addition, and, recently, two poured concrete window wells and rear aluminum screens. She said the house still has good integrity. It has an addition on the garage which does not distract from the property. The house and garage are significant for their architecture. She read a September 12 letter from prospective buyer, William Coulson disagreeing with Ms. McWilliams' opinion that the property was eligible for designation, and she clarified that the house and the garage are being considered for eligibility but this does not start the designation process. Mr. Mullen, representative for Mr. Coulson, said that Mr. Coulson wants to know the property's status before buying so that he will know all potential regulations. • Landmark Preservation Commission September 13, 2000 Meeting Minutes Page 3 Ms. Aguilera asked if this had implications for the current owner. Ms. McWilliams explained the implications and stated that the current owner Pat Lineham, was aware of Mr. Coulson's request for a determination of eligibility. Mr. Frank said that the LPC can decide on the eligiblity issue without the owner's permission. Mr. Hogestad brought the Commission back to the point of considering the eligibility of the property itself. Ms. Ore agreed, saying the decision should be based on the established criteria. Ms. McWillilams showed slides of the house and garage. Mr. Hogestad asked if the applicant was seeking a formal action from the LPC. Ms. McWilliams said yes. Mr. Mullen said that Mr. Coulson would prefer to do things to the house without being told how to do it. He asked how it could be eligible if there was no important history about the house or an important person who lived there. Ms. McWilliams explained the categories of importance and said that this house had architectural significance. Mr. Pouppirt asked how eligibility affects the property and Ms. McWilliams explained how the LUC and demolition review processes are followed. Mr. Frick asked the age of the property and the response was 1910, remodeled in c.1920. Mr. Hogestad said that the only changes were a side porch and rear addition which were done very early and were very sympathetic to the architecture. Mr. Frank asked Mr. Mullen if he knew what Mr. Coulson intended to do and if he understood that design review is only on the exterior. Mr. Mullen was not aware of Mr. Coulson's plans for the property. Mr. Hogestad said that the original structure is discernible. The additions probably were close to the time of the original structure. The profile of the facia boards are the same on the original and additions. Mr. Frank asked Ms. McWilliams to clarify the regulations that would be in affect. She said that if eligible, alterations requiring a building permit would be reviewed under the Demo Review process. If they were doing anything beyond a single family use, then the Land Use Code could apply. Mr. Pouppirt expressed some concerns about the affect on the property owner. Mr. Frick said the property was definitely eligible; it was a typical home for that era. Mr. Ore and Mr. Hogestad agreed. Mr. Hogestad asked for public input and there was none. Ms. Ore moved that the LPC determine the house and garage as eligible as a local landmark based on their architecture of the classic box style. Ms. Dix seconded the motion. In discussion, Ms. Aguilera said that she was uncomfortable with the owner not making the request. Motion passed, 6-0. 136 LAPORTE, C&S DEPOT, STATUS REPORT (Ms. Tunner) Ms. Tunner explained that the C&S Depot project was LPC approved on August 23, but some questions remained. The LPC Design Review Sub -Committee of Frick/Hogestad/Pouppirt met on site on September 11 with the architect, Mike Rush, Project Manager Jack Gianola, James Stratis of the State Historical Fund and City staff, Tunner and Frank. They discussed saving as much historic freight door hardware as possible and the covering for a proposed AHU rooftop unit. Mr. Frick explained how they would even save the door counterweights in place by supporting them so they would not fall. Mr. Frank described that Mr. Rush was very agreeable and compromising to save as much historic fabric as would be possible. He also said that the committee decided the AHU rooftop unit might be better left uncovered which would Landmark Preservation Commission September 13, 2000 Meeting Minutes Page 4 take less room than a metal surrounding box. The land use code requires a cover, so the applicant will have to look into getting a modification for this treatment later. 314 E. MOUNTAIN, STATE ARMORY, REHABILITATION (Paul Jensen, owner, and Don Bundy/Glenn Konen, architects with The Architect's Studio) Ms. Aguilera left the meeting because of a conflict of interest (her husband now works for the Jensen Group.) Mr. Bundy told the LPC that they were seeking final approval except for the colors and signage. Ms. Tunner showed slides of all sides of the building. She explained that on August 31, a special meeting was held to approve: removing the non -historic left side storefront and replacing it with selected matching brick and two windows as per the original construction; repairing existing windows; re -roofing with a black rubber fully adhered membrane roof, and demolishing a severely deteriorated rear building segment in the northeast corner on the alley and a paired northwest window which would become a new exterior door. Mr. Bundy then presented their plans for the rest of the work. The northwest door will be replaced with a fixed glass panel door. Two non -original ventilation fans on the northwest elevation that are 2 1/2' square will be replaced with glass in the existing wood frames to get as much light into the building as possible. They will make a new opening in the northwest elevation - the two paired windows will be sawed to the ground and replaced with a new door with sidelites. Outside this new door there will be a balcony edged with painted steel railing and a ramp exiting on grade. The rear flat roofed addition will be removed but the brick party wall with the adjoining business will be stepped down to a new 7' stucco enclosure wall to hide a transformer and trash. The face of the transformer is required to show through the wall but the face will be painted the same color. The newly exposed rear of the building will have large glass clerestory windows and a painted flush metal frame exit door onto Chestnut St. A 3 1/2 foot stuccoed wall with solid gate will be built around the basement ramped entrance for flood control. The rear entrance ramp will be replaced by a stairway and raised planting area. The new courtyard is meant to be an informal concrete paver patio and exit area. The original ramp doors are not worthy to seal off the outside elements, so they will be pinned open. New doors will be built in back of them. All of the back of the building will be covered with stucco. Mr. Bundy continued that they would reuse the historic hopper upper window sash at the front entry, but they may be required to push the 1' recessed doors back another 2' to meet building code. They need to rebuild the door frame because reusing the existing frame would only leave 6" for sidelights and 4' wide doors. There is also no jamb against the brick. A second problem is that the opening sits on a high step which they plan to remove to lower the doorway for handicapped accessibility. Mr. Bundy felt that the current door frame was a retrofit anyway. Mr. Konen and Mr. Bundy drew a sketch of the existing conditions. They said there were no existing pictures of the original doors to the building. 0 • Landmark Preservation Commission September 13, 2000 Meeting Minutes Page 5 On a northwest corner elevation facing Chestnut St. (sheet 4.3) they will rebuild an existing deteriorated door and transom as close as possible to the one there, but fixed as a glass door panel with new transom above. On the northwest elevation, after removing the paired windows, they will install a pair of side by side doors with one fixed leaf. They will be painted wood with historic glass if possible. On the upper west elevation of the building, they will remove the plastic Paramount Dry Cleaners letters and repair the mortar joints. The ghost signs will remain as is. Mr. Hogestad opened the discussion for questions. Mr. Frick asked how tall the gate to the courtyard would be. Mr. Bundy said 7' with the bottom portion metal and sealable. Ms. Tunner asked about the front fagade window well with segmental arched window to the basement and the coal chute with purple glass bubble top in the sidewalk. Mr. Bundy said they would have to come back with those plans. Ms. Ore asked if there was any way to retain a semblance of the ramp because it is a defining feature of the building. Mr. Konen said the doors are in the middle of the ramp and building code requires backslope to keep water from going into the building. The proposed stairs will not replicate the slope. Ms. Ore asked if there was any alternative, and Mr. Konen said they could only save a small piece of the ramp that wouldn't be recognizable. Mr. Jensen offered to put a plaque on the doors explaining the original use of the entrance. Mr. Frick asked for details of the courtyard gate again, and Mr. Konen said that this too should come back for review later. Mr. Hogestad asked for public input. Mr. Hill offered that in his experience, the utilities people will not let the transformer be painted. He also said that there is software available to peer into dark comers of pictures, so maybe it could be done on the early pictures available of this building. Ms. Tunner said that the pictures are newspaper sketches and this method probably wouldn't work. Ms. Ore moved to approve the rehabilitation for adaptive reuse for 314 E. Mountain including alterations as submitted except for: color, signage, rear ramp doors, front fagade window well, sidewalk coal chute, and courtyard gate. Ms. Dix seconded the motion. Mr. Frick made a friendly amendment; in regards to the front door system, they should see if the door can be left where it is, and not shoved back in, that is, explore leaving it in place. But the applicant would have the option to move the door entry back if code requires it. The amendment was acceptable to Ms. Ore/Ms. Dix and the amended motion passed 5-0. Ms. Aguilera rejoined the LPC. PRESTON FARM GRANARY — FINAL REVIEW (Dick Hill, AIA, representing David and Patty Lawser, owners and Historic Fort Collins Development Corporation) Ms. Tunner described that this review was for Phase 1 (new set of wood sliding doors for the west end, move existing wood sliding doors to be fixed shut together on east end, repair/replace corrugated metal roofing as needed, replace roof skip sheathing, reattach existing shutters and one new shutter on south elevation, reinstall cove siding on east elevation, and replace missing siding.) Phase 2 (barn straightening/leveling, wall/sills/stud work, and lead paint removal) will come back in later for review. Landmark Preservation Commission September 13, 2000 Meeting Minutes ' Page 6 Mr. Hill explained the rusted, bent, door track was still in place with only one half of the original doors on each east and west end.. They propose to put the old track, running gear, and old doors together on the more visible east end and build new doors for the west end. Also, only one patch of skip siding needs to be replaced. It is on the east end. On the east side a 10' by 8' section of cove siding was removed to get at a bee's nest, but the saved wood will be reinstalled. Any necessary new siding will match the old. Shutters will be reinstalled and one missing one will be reconstructed. In Phase 2 they will address replacing and/or cutting -in the 2x6 wall studs, floor joists, rim sill, pier foundation, paint removal, etc. Mr. Hogestad asked for public input; there was none. Mr. Frick moved that the Preston Granary rehabilitation for Landmark Rehabilitaton Grant final review of Phase 1 at 4605 S. Co. Rd. 9 be approved. Motion passed 6-0. YOUNG'S PASTURE — PROSPECT Developers) Mr. Hogestad relinquised the chair to Mr. property owner. CREEK (Leroy Cynkar and Ron Grace, Frick and sat in the audience as an affected Mr. Ray Kramer, of Winter, Kramer and Jessup Architects, described the conflict between the proposed plan, the surrounding neighborhood, and the land use requirements. A workshop was held to learn what the neighborhood meant to the people living there. The Sheely Neighborhood described themselves as: existing street patterns that were not New Urbanism, restricted access, low traffic volumes, large lots without fencing, large setbacks, no cookie cutter homes, large windows, views and vistas, no street lights, curbs or gutters or sidewalks, and no secondary structures except garages. Mr. Kramer then described traditional and post WW II perceptions of streets, building placement, building forms, and changes in additive/subtractive elements. He showed how the design concepts for the proposed new development progressed to get more of a natural setting, individual courtyards, less mass and bulk, everyone to have open space using the creek and a cul-de-sac to be seamless. They tried to minimize obstructions and maximize views. There are two halves to the proposed development and they needed to bring them together somehow. They used the architecture to stitch together the neighborhood. Mr. De Sousa, architect, continued that the proposed west units would be multi -family and the east units single-family. The east half would be linear single-family detached homes with small flats above the garages, one behind another, which layers the space in planes. They align to look down the creek corridor like single family homes. They also tried to touch on the mid-20th century architecture of the Sheely Neighborhood. There are wall planes with flat roofs, and small voids and strips of glass to give a sense of lightness. Shallow, wide spread roofs have deep eaves but are thin in appearance. They have used the element of horizontality to relate the buildings to the ground plane. Landmark Preservation Commis0 September 13, 2000 Meeting Minutes Page 7 Ms. McWilliams asked the price range and developer Ron Grace answered 3,500-4,000 square foot homes would be in the $500,000 to $600,000 range. Mr. De Sousa continued that the smaller units on the west half would have additive/subtractive elements and individual courtyards/gardens. Some have 2 or 3 bedrooms and carports. There are carports in the Sheely Subdivision. They make the building edges lighter. Some portions have flat/gabled/hip roofs, and long extenions for deep shadows. They will use brick and wood. Garages have been pulled back between units for security. There is no spot where roofs come together between units. These units would go for $200,000 to $250,000. There will be 8 detached homes in the east and 14 patio homes in the west. Mr. Frick asked if there would be any connections to the surrounding neighborhood. There will be none. Mr. Frick pointed out the existing surrounding homes and noted the vertical change, caused by a natural ridge, was an advantage. He said that the style of architecture proposed was a good neighbor according to himself and Ms. Ore who reviewed the plan in an earlier meeting. Mr. Pouppirt noted that this is a complimentary review and no authority exists for the LPC. Mr. Frank agreed, saying that staff will hear the comments and make recommendations to the reviewing authority. Mr. Frick asked if the LPC could see the final plans. Mr. Kramer said that they would like to come back. Mr. Cynkar, developer, said that they like the changes that have been made, and they think it enhances the value of the project; however, they can't dictate what other city departments may require of them. The LPC was asked if anyone had a final comment. Ms. Dix said she felt that the materials specified were compatible with the Sheely Neighborhood. Ms. Ore added that they are compatible but look different and this is good. Mr. Frick asked for public input. Jack Applin at 1608 Sheely Drive asked where the foot traffic would go; how close is Prospect St.? He noted a need to make provision for people to get to Prospect. He was concerned about lights and asked about streetlights. Mr. Kramer said lights would go at the entry of units, but they would have to work with city staff. New rules require garages behind porches and they need to work this out. Ms. Pat Wilkins -Wells of 1609 Sheely Drive said they need a buffer from the existing Landmark Apts. The proposed subdivision is a big investment to be so close to the cheaper rental units. Mr. Kramer appreciated her point about the west edge of the proposed development. Mr. Grace said it would be a city issue. Ms. Wilkins -Wells noted that this development creates a buffer between the Sheely Neighborhood and the Landmark Apts. The applicants said the west units will have to create their own views by using their gardens. Mr. Grace said they would have to direct windows in the units. Mr. Per Hogestad of 1601 Sheely Drive thought the site plan had come a long way from the beginning. He noted there is still a lot of paving and he asked if the proposed streets are minimum widths. Mr. Kramer answered yes, and that they were trying to share driveways. Ms. Wilkins -Wells said that her property line is right up against the east houses and street with no buffers, but then she said it was better not to wall them off but leave it open. Ms. Polly Puleston of 1613 Sheely Drive expressed concern that all the water draining off the asphalt would drain into her yard. Mr. Cynkar said that they would carve out a detention area in the south area. Mr. Grace noted that the city has built a huge new retention pond up Landmark Preservation Commission September 13, 2000 Meeting Minutes Page 8 stream, but discussions are continuing on the probability of flooding. Mr. Hogestad added that the Sheely Neighborhood doesn't want an exact copy of their area, but that the proposed plan is good. He also said that views are paramount and the more horizontal and linear the homes are the better it would be in his opinion. Mr. Frick asked if there was other business. There was none. Meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Meeting minutes prepared by Carol Tunner, staff.