Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 05/12/1999LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting Minutes May 12, 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 approved the skylight curbing and re -roofing a 51 Linden for local landmark grant funds and state tax credit. The LPC approved final hanges made to the proposed addition at St. Joseph's School, at 127 North Howes. New light fixtures for the Silver Grill, 210-218 Walnut, were approved. The LPC etermined that the farm structures associated with the Cal Jessup/Johnson farm property would be eligible as local landmarks even when relocated to the site and onfiguration presented in the Rigden Farm community center plan. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Mr. Hogestad called the meeting to order at 5:37 p.m., at 281 North College Avenue. Commission members Angela Milewski, Bud Frick, Janet Ore, James Tanner and Rande Pouppirt were present. Angie Aguilera was absent. Carol Tunner, Karen McWilliams and Joe Frank represented staff. GUESTS: Mark Thorburn, Contractor, University Designers and Builders, Richard Beardmore, A-E Design, and Doug Gennetten, owner, 251 Linden; Rick Hallman, Hallman Assoc., Architecture; Jennifer Carpenter and Scott Griffin, Wheeler Realty, Troy Jones, current project planner for the Cal Johnson/Jessup Farm; Karen Smith, citizen that applied to become a member of the LPC; Mike Powers, Director of Cultural, Library and Recreational Services; Ellen Martin and Mike Breimhorst, Art in Public Places; Michael Hayden, Artist and Libby Dale. AGENDA REVIEW: Ms. McWilliams amended the agenda to include a presentation on Art in Public Places from the City's Cultural, Library, and Recreational Services Division. Ms. Tunner added a review of the proposed light fixtures for the Silver Grill and a discussion on ex parte contact. STAFF REPORTS: Ms. Tunner reported on the City's program on increasing effectiveness of boards and commissions. COMMISSION MEMBER'S REPORTS: Ms. Milewski reported that she would not be able to attend the DDA meeting Friday, May 14, 1999. Mr. Frick said he would attend. CURRENT REVIEW: 251 Linden, Robertson/Haynes Block - Replace Roof for Landmark Rehabilitation Mr. Thorburn passed out spec sheets for materials on the roofwork at 251 Linden. The work would not be visible from the public -right-of-way, but it is a State Tax Credit project so it needs to be reviewed. They have found the location of the original skylight. Landmark Preservation Commission Regular Meeting Minutes May 12, 1999 Page 2 Layers of the old roofing would be removed and replaced with Elastomeric single -ply roofing membrane. Repairs would also be made to the drainage systems, and roof damage would be repaired. Mr. Thorburn added that the building next door has an identical skylight. The narrow area between the skylight and the building parapet would be covered up. Mr. Thorburn explained that the LPC was only approving the curbing and roofing at this time. He passed out pictures of the damaged areas and rough openings. The roof also would need to be leveled up. There would be metal flashing from the skylight curb to the existing parapet. Ms. Ore asked if originally the skylight was over the landing between the two staircases. Mr. Gennetten, owner, explained that there was plate glass in the second floor, so that light would go down to the first floor. He added that the original hole still existed in the building next door. Mr. Hogestad asked if there was any public input and there was none. Mr. Tanner moved to approve the request to reframe the parapet, where the brick was damaged and replace the roof, skylight, and curbing on 251 Linden. Ms. Ore seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. (6-0) Mr. Frick declared a conflict -of -interest because he was the architect on the next project. 210-218 Walnut Mr. Thorburn reported that Mr. Arnolfo, the owner, had selected light fixtures for the fagade. The fixtures will have a galvanized finish and left to right would be installed with 2 on 210; 1 on 212; 2 on 214; 1 on 216; and 2 on 218. They would be installed just below the corbeling in the brick. The lights would broadly illuminate the upper awnings, so they chose a wider design. The fixture shade has a twenty -inch diameter, with 17 inches top to bottom, and would stick out thirty-three inches. Ms. Ore asked for the age of the buildings, which were built between the 1890s and 1900s. Mr. Thorburn and Mr. Frick discussed the galvanized finish of the light fixtures. They agreed that the dull finish would be less obtrusive than a dark red or green color. Ms. Tunner added that bare bulbs in light fixtures are also historic. Mr. Tanner asked if this design was a reproduction of an historic design. This light fixture design was used between the 1920s and 1940s. He wondered whether more contemporary addition to historic fagades should be more distinguishable from the historic fabric. Mr. Hogestad said that the galvanized finish would appear more contemporary. He asked if there was any public input, and there was none. Ms. Milewski moved to accept the lighting for the Silver Grill buildings as submitted (H19120/HL-A-97). Mr. Pouppirt seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. (5-0) 127 N. Howes, St. Joseph's School - Changes to Final LPC Approved Plan for Mr. Hattman provided plans that included the most recent changes. Ms. Tunner said that she had concerns regarding how the addition would be attached to the back of the Landmark Preservation Commi� • Regular Meeting Minutes May 12, 1999 Page 3 parish office building. Mr. Hattman explained that the details of the windows were changed on the new plans to four panes to be more compatible with the original windows. He said that they had changed the roofing and ventilation systems for fire safety. The vents originally designed for the gables and walls were replaced with split - block features on the northwest and east ends. The double doors at the main entrance were changed from a full glass door to a hollow metal for better maintenance and safety. The one over one design would also hide the panic bar on the door. Mr. Hattman added that the new door would have more historic character. The entrance area would also be vaulted to acquire more light and a larger circular window would accent the west side. Mr. Hattman explained the elevation of the addition and its relationship to the parish office, where it would be connected. The elevation of the addition needed to be above the soffit line of the original building to accommodate drainage on the roof and the mechanical systems. A simple gutter would be installed with no particular detailing. He tried to keep the design of the gables on the addition similar to gables on other parts of the building. On the south elevation, the parapet would reach 28 feet high versus 32 feet high, as submitted earlier. Ms. Tunner asked about what would happen to the windows and doors of the old parish once that side of the building became an interior wall. Mr. Hattman explained that there was one window. in the stairwell, which are illegal, and two windows in the bathroom. One would be taken out and then would become an entrance to the offices. The windows on the lower level in the bathrooms would be blocked in and a ventilation system would be installed. Ms. Tunner suggested saving the original windows and said that they could be used as replacements in the future. Mr. Hattman said that he would advise his client. The Commission inquired about the new windows, which were snap - in and made of painted aluminum. Mr. Hogestad asked if there was any citizen input, and there was none. Ms. Ore asked about the size of the circular window. Mr. Hattman explained that the furthest ring on the round window was masonry trim to help set the window apart from the brick. Mr. Frick moved to approve the changes to the previously final LPC approved plan for the addition to the historic building as presented and shown on the submitted documents. Mr. Tanner seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. (6-0) DISCUSSION ITEMS: Cal Johnson/ Riaden Farm Property Mr. Frank explained the LPC really doesn't have a role in the design review process with Planning and Zoning, but should rather provide comments to staff. Ms. McWilliams added that they would be involved in the design review if the property were designated. Tonight, they reviewed the development plans with the idea of determining a placement and design elements that the Commission would feel comfortable with and would not adversely affect the property's determination of eligibility. Mr. Jones, current project Landmark Preservation Commission Regular Meeting Minutes May 12, 1999 Page 4 planner explained that Drake Road was being widened, which was a separate project from the Rigden Farm PDP. However, the relocation of the structures needed to be approved prior to the approval of the PDP. The Commission also needed to determine where the structures should be moved and whether the structures would still be eligible for local landmark designation when moved. The LPC discussed whether the structure should be designated before they were moved or if they should approve the relocation, contingent on designation. Ms. McWilliams reported that the buildings on the farm have been determined to be individually eligible for designation on the National Register of Historic Places and for Local Landmark designation. The buildings are significant for their architecture and association with the Johnson family. The Commission discussed whether they could approve the conceptual plan on the condition that the structures are designated. Ms. McWilliams explained that integrity was based on the location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association of the farm. The historic and architectural significance of the farm has been established. The integrity of the farm may be impacted, especially by altering the setting, which would alter the feeling and association of the farm. Ms. Carpenter presented the current proposed plans for the farm structures to move them to a community center. The setting around the building would be open space with a drainage area that was greater than five acres. The area would be accessible by pedestrians and by the bike path. The Commission liked the open space around the farm structures and community center. Ms. Carpenter explained that they kept the original orientation of the buildings the same. A proposed deck was moved to the back of the house. The circular drive mimics the original site. She explained that relocating the bunkhouse and the garage would make it difficult to lay out the other buildings. They would try to move and reuse the spruce trees from the original site. They discussed incorporating a handicap ramp or wheelchair lift into the deck and what design would minimize the impact. Ms. Tunner recommended using the landscape to create a ramp up to the building. The Commission talked about whether the deck would impact the eligibility of the farmhouse for designation. They discussed what sort of designs would make the deck more sympathetic to the historic structure. Mr. Frick suggested detaching the deck from the house. Mr. Hogestad suggested breaking up the deck with a higher and lower grade area and the handicap ramp. They discussed the relocation and new configuration of the farm buildings. Ms. McWilliams suggested that the bunkhouse could be used for storage of maintenance and garden equipment for the community garden area. Ms. Carpenter liked the idea. The house was built in the 1920s and the garage could have been built around the same time as the original house. Ms. Ore was concerned about the integrity of the site. She reviewed the seven criteria for establishing integrity. She explained that moving a farm building to a commercial setting sets a precedent and that they need to be careful about designating an adaptive re -use. The LPC agreed that the setting of the farm would still be gone, even if it were not relocated. Efforts need to be made to preserve the feeling of the farm. They agreed that the deck created a big issue in preserving the Landmark Preservation Commis • Regular Meeting Minutes May 12, 1999 Page 5 feeling of a farmhouse. Ms. Carpenter explained that four out of the five buildings would be relocated in the original configuration. The bunkhouse would come close to the original position. The Commission further discussed how moving the structures would affect the setting, feeling and association of a farm, and therefore would impact the historic integrity of the structures. They discussed the impact of moving the structures on its integrity according to the seven criteria. The location would be lost. The design would still be there, but would still be impacted by alterations. There was discussion concerning the setting and physical environment of the structures. The LPC discussed how pristine the setting needed to be for an historic structure to still be considered eligible for local landmark designation. The materials and physical elements would not be affected. The workmanship would be maintained. The feeling and association was also discussed further. They questioned whether it would still convey a period of time and a certain historic character. The association described the relationship between the farm and certain people. It was suggested that less landscaping would portray the feeling of the farmstead better. Ms. Carpenter explained that its use as a community center would never feel like a farm. Ms. Ore was concerned about moving historic buildings to the middle of a sub -division and then calling it an historic district. Mr. Frank agreed that developers should be encouraged to re -use historic structures on site instead of moving them. It was agreed that when the Cal Johnson buildings are moved they would be eligible only for their architecture. The farm would be completely out of the setting and the context which have contributed to its significance. The LPC also wanted to see the bunkhouse and garage in the plan and suggested that the arbor or gazebo structure be removed. They agreed that a plan should be made that conveyed the farmstead better. Mr. Tanner said that here should be stronger connections between the buildings. Mr. Hogestad said that there should be fewer trees and you should be able to see the barn from the house. He asked if there was any public input, and there was none. Ms. Milewski suggested that if the farm buildings would no longer be eligible for their setting, then create the setting of a community center, while preserving the historic architecture of the buildings that still have integrity. Mr. Tanner moved that the LPC declare the Johnson Farm buildings and structures eligible for Local Landmark designation on the condition that at least three of the buildings, the house, the barn, and the chicken coop, be moved and located in the configuration and location in the conceptual plan presented. Mr. Pouppirt seconded the motion. A friendly amendment was not accepted that was made by Mr. Frick to look at moving the garage with the other buildings including the bunkhouse. (4-2) (Yeas: Hogestad, Milewski, Tanner, Pouppirt) (Nays: Frick, Ore) The Commission discussed moving the additional buildings. Mr. Tanner felt that they should be more flexible with an adaptive reuse. Ms. Milewski agreed. Mr. Frank said that eligibility should not be based on moving all or nothing. Ms. Tunner agreed that it Landmark Preservation Commission Regular Meeting Minutes May 12, 1999 Page 6 would still appear as a farm without the garage. Mr. Frick disagreed and said that the garage was part of the farm and was consistent with the architecture of the house. Mr. Griffin summarized from the meeting that the applicants should pursue designation, change the design of the deck and consider a patio feature, possibly create grade changes to minimize the impact of a ramp, look at including the bunkhouse and garage, and maintain sight lines between the house and barn. OTHER BUSINESS: Art in Public Places, (Michael Hayden) Mr. Powers introduced Mr. Hayden, artist, who was selected to contribute his artwork to downtown Fort Collins as part of Art in Public Places. Mr. Hayden gave a presentation on "Thinking Lightly" and described his portfolio of work and the theme, construction and placement of the proposed hologram sails for downtown Fort Collins. The sails would move like large, rigid rudders in the wind. The surface would be an articulated hologram encapsulated in laminated plastic. The sails would be installed between twenty and fifty feet high on the thirty-four light poles that line College Avenue between LaPorte and Magnolia streets. They would have a maximum height of eight feet and have thirty inches of width at the bottom. They would not compete with the existing signage, historic architecture, or trees along the street. Mr. Tanner asked if they would be permanently installed, which they would be. Mr. Hogestad asked about the weight of the sails, the wind load, and the materials. Mr. Hayden explained that they would be only twenty-five pounds and that a prototype would be built first. Mr. Hogestad asked how large the reflections of the holograms would cast. Mr. Hayden did not know, but explained that it would be very patchy. The LPC discussed whether the structures would interfere with sight views to the historic buildings and other features of the design and installation of the sails. DISCUSSION ITEMS CONTINUED Council Policy Agenda Ms. Tunner presented a memo describing the role of a quasi-judicial board and information on avoiding ex parte contacts made by City board and commission members. The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Submitted by Nicole Sneider, Secretary.