HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 08/25/1999LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Regular Meeting Minutes
August 25, 1999
Council Liaison: Scott Mason (226 — 4824)
Staff Liaison: Joe Frank (221-6376)
Commission Chairperson: Per Hogestad (303-292-1875)
SUMMARY OF MEETING: The LPC discussed the proposed alteration for the
Williamson House, at 300 Peterson and whether with those changes the
building would still be eligible for Local Landmark designation. The LPC
moved to not consider the structure eligible, with the proposed changes,
according to the criteria for Local Landmark designation.
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Mr. Hogestad called the meeting to order at 5:45
p.m., at 281 North College Avenue. Commission members Angela Milewski, Bud Frick,
Angie Aguilera, Rande Pouppirt, Janet Ore, and Agnes Dix were present. Carol Tunner
and Karen McWilliams represented staff.
GUESTS: John Kevin Cross and Maura M. Velazquez -Castillo, owners, and Jim Cox
Architect, for 300 Peterson.
AGENDA REVIEW: Ms. McWilliams said that the designation of the Andrew House,
Barn, and Garage, at 515 — 5151/2 South Meldrum was postponed until September.
STAFF REPORTS: Ms. Tunner provided a flyer regarding a training opportunity and
Barn Workshop on Saturday, August 28, 1999. She invited Commission members to
attend and explained that the workshop was sponsored by Barn Again, which is a part
of the National Trust.
COMMISSION MEMBERS' REPORTS: Mr. Frick reported that the stabilization of the
chicken coop at the Preston Farm would also be taking place Saturday, August 28,
1999, with the Historic Fort Collins Development Corporation.
LANDMARK DESIGNATION:
Ms. McWilliams presented the staff report and discussed the alterations that have been
made to the house to date. The new owners are interested in pursuing Local Landmark
Designation if the Commission can support the alterations they propose for the building.
She showed slides of all facades of the house and pointed out current alterations in the
slides, which included a stucco finish; a fire escape made of wood off the second floor,
and the addition of all aluminum storm windows. She then explained the proposed
alterations and additions for the house and the reasoning behind staff's
recommendation for the LPC not to approve the request for Local Landmark
designation, as written in the staff report. Jim Cox, architect, requested that Ms.
McWilliams address further the items which staff felt were non -conforming with the
Landmark Preservation Commission
August 25, 1999 Regular Meeting Minutes
Page 2
Secretary of the Interior's Standards. She explained what features or additions
proposed for the house would not meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards
Number 2, 5, and 10, as stated in the staff report. Ms. McWilliams discussed Standard
Number 2 and commented that the addition of the rather large greenhouse included
altering a masonry window and would be covering up or destroying original, historic
features. She explained that altering windows could destroy a distinguishing pattern on
an elevation. This pattern contributes to the distinguishing historic character of the
house, that also includes the roofing and building materials, rooflines, and overall mass.
It was the cumulative effect of all of the proposed changes that would be problematic
for designation of the house as a Local Landmark. The addition proposed for the side
would not meet Standard Number 5, because it would affect the window pattern. Also,
a rather large structure would be added to the rear. The addition would change the
roofline. She explained that the changing roofline patterns was destroying a
distinguishing feature of the building. The proposal would not meet Standard Number
10 because the work was not reversible. The applicants planned to cut into the
masonry and proposed to change windows.
Mr. Cox explained the alterations that were proposed for the house. He said that he
agreed that the addition would change the roofline. He said that he brought the roofline
and walls of the addition in slightly, trying to honor the original house and distinguish it
from the new addition. He said that they would save any materials left from cutting out
the door, so that it could be put back later. He explained that the window in front would
be altered in an attempt to bring back a more vertical design to the windows. He
explained that at some point someone else had added more horizontal windows. He
added that they would be using the same window openings. They also plan to remove
the door where the fire escape is and replace it with a vertical window. Mr. Cox
explained the greenhouse served as passive solar and it could be removed fairly easily.
He concluded that except for the addition, everything else was reversible. He described
the use of passive solar and lighting in an older structure.
Mr. Cross reported on the feedback that he had received from Judy Ehrlich at the State
Historical Society. He explained that she felt that the alterations would be acceptable
for the State Tax Credit program because the additions were proposed for the rear, and
due to the need for more space as a family. Ms. Tunner referred to materials from a
slide show on new additions to historic buildings from the National Park Service. She
explained that solar panels and skylights could be visually devastating when installed
on a primary fagade, but these are proposed for the sides. Ms. Tunner referred to the
material on greenhouses, and stated that even transparent greenhouses could obscure
historic form and features. Again the information referred to the primary fagade. Ms.
Tunner added that if windows are not historic, she encourages applicants to find a good
reference of what they might have looked like originally. She further explained that with
this application, the LPC needed to deal with the design on a corner lot, where the side
of the house would become a more prominent elevation. She recommended that the
applicant install the skylights on the south or east side of the roof, which were less
visually prominent. Mr. Cox explained that they would try to get the windows back as
close to as they were.
Landmark Preservation Commie •
August 25, 1999 Regular Meeting Minutes
Page 3
Mr. Cox and the Commission discussed the design of the rear addition. Mr. Cox said
that given the current shape of the rear of the house, the addition would help balance
the transom out.
Mr. Hogestad commented that rather than pull the walls and roof in by just a couple of
inches, he would rather see a wall of the utility room moved a couple of feet, or move
the walls and roof in more so that you could really see the difference. He encouraged
the applicants to consider the skylights on the south or east sides. He suggested that
they remove the solar panel near the front and use it somewhere in the back. Mr.
Cross explained that it was essential to install the solar panel near the front and they
would need all three.
Mr. Pouppirt suggested that they keep the greenhouse transparent and non -detailed.
He commented that the addition was too ornate. They should also keep the windows
as historically accurate as possible. Mr. Cox explained that his clients have sensitivity
to the building and are interested in working with the LPC. He explained that the solar
panels and skylights were reversible and could be removed. Mr. Hogestad asked about
the materials for the greenhouse. Mr. Cox said that they would probably use glass and
they have not discussed what kind of base they would use. Mr. Hogestad explained
that the greenhouse was the most disturbing element and he suggested that they try to
offset it from the house. Ms. Ore agreed that the greenhouse structure obscured the
side of the building. Ms. Aguilera commented that it would also change the appearance
from the front elevation. Mr. Frick suggested that they put the greenhouse to the rear,
off the addition. Mr. Cox explained that the applicants would like to have the
greenhouse off the kitchen and dining room. The Commission discussed other options
for placement of the proposed greenhouse.
Mr. Frick recommended that the addition be bumped out or pulled in by at least six
inches to distinguish it from the original house. He agreed that the solar panels and
skylights should not be installed on or close to the front facades. He suggested that the
applicant research photo -documentation, or look at the windows on similar houses for
the second story windows. He also recommended that they simplify the addition. Ms.
Milewski explored the installation of the solar panels on the roof of the greenhouse.
Ms. Ore wanted to bring the discussion back to the eligibility of the house and whether
the alterations would jeopardize the eligibility of the building as a Local Landmark. Mr.
Frick concluded that the way that the plans were submitted, it would not be eligible with
the changes, and added that they were willing to give suggestions. Ms. Ore stressed
that she would like to see the historic fabric of the house preserved. She explained that
if the greenhouse had a foundation, it would change the overall shape and footprint.
She was also concerned about them cutting into the masonry of the building. The
Commission discussed other plans for the greenhouse addition, including attaching it
to the addition or wrapping it around the structure. Ms. Ore liked the idea of keeping
the two proposed additions together. Ms. Milewski discussed the overall goals for
designating a house as a Local Landmark that involved preserving relatively unaltered
buildings from a period of time in Fort Collins. Given the cumulative effects of the
proposed alterations, she was not comfortable with considering it a Local Landmark.
Landmark Preservation Commission
August 25, 1999 Regular Meeting Minutes
Page 4
Mr. Pouppirt commented that the applicants were going to change a run-down rental
into a beautiful residence. The Commission reviewed and discussed the purpose of the
Local Landmark designation ordinance as written in Chapter 14 of the City Code. The
LPC reviewed their suggestions and concerns regarding the proposed project. In
conclusion, they would like to see the solar panels on the back, the skylights on the
addition, and the addition less omate and more subordinate. They also agreed that the
greenhouse would not be approved if the house had already been designated.
Ms. Ore moved that the LPC confers with staff's report and determination that
Local Landmark Designation for the Williamson House, at 300 Peterson does not
meet criteria for Local Landmark Designation based on the plans submitted. Mr.
Frick seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. (7-0) (Yeas: Hogestad,
Milewski, Frick, Pouppirt, Ore, Aguilera, Dix) (Nays:None)
Each LPC members provided a summary of their comments.
Mr. Frick recommended moving the back addition in six inches, lowering the roof as
well, and simplifying the design. The greenhouse should be attached to the addition
and the skylights would be okay on the addition. The solar panels would be okay on
the east side.
Mr. Pouppirt said that they could leave the greenhouse where it is.
Ms. Ore did not like the greenhouse the way it was presented. The skylights and solar
panels should not be installed near the front fagade. She was also concerned about
the applicants cutting into the masonry.
Mr. Hogestad agreed that the design of the greenhouse was severe now. He
suggested that it go around the comer. He also suggested that the solar panels be
installed to the rear of the house.
Ms. Aguilera did not like the skylights on the roof of the north and west (front) facades.
She suggested that the greenhouse be attached to the addition.
Ms. Milewski said that the applicants overall were trying to do sensitive things, and
could even more so with the changes that had been discussed. She also had a
problem with the greenhouse near the front fagade.
Ms. Dix said that the greenhouse was the most obtrusive item. She liked the upstairs
addition and thought that it would balance the design. She also liked the idea of having
solar heat.
OTHER BUSINESS: None.
The meeting adjourned 7:22 p.m.
Submitted by Nicole Sneider, Secretary