Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 03/10/19990 • LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting Minutes March 10, 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 144 North College Avenue for State Tax Credit Part 2, and the porch restoration of the Isaac W. Bennett House at 816 West Mountain Ave. for a 1999 Landmark Rehabilitation grant. The LPC reviewed plans for renovation of the north brick building at the old Sugar Beet factory at 725 East Vine. The LPC approved the writing of support letters for State Historical Fund grants. Projects included the restoration of the Andrews House, 324 E. Oak, and the Streetcar Barn, 330 N. Howes. The correction of the designation of the Street Railway "Car Barn" at 330 N. Howes. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Mr. Hogestad called the meeting order at 7:35 p.m., at 281 North College Avenue. Commission members Janet Ore, James Tanner, Angela Milewski, and Angie Aguilera were present. Bud Frick and Rande Pouppirt were absent. Carol Tunner represented staff. GUESTS: Carolyn Early, owner, 144 North College Avenue; Jack Gianola, City Project Manager and John Renhowe, Vaught -Frye Architects for 725 East Vine; Jim White, Architect, Carol Stansfield, Facilities Management, Colorado State University for the Andrews House. AGENDA REVIEW: None. STAFF REPORTS: Ms. Tunner handed out forms for the Colorado Preservation Inc. state honor awards. This is a program where in the last year, they nominate a project for the State Honor Awards. Ms. Tunner provided a handout from Timothy Wilder, City Planner, on the final results of the Landmark Rehabilitation Grant Program for 1999. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The November 18, 1999 LPC meeting minutes were accepted as submitted. COMMISSION MEMBERS' REPORTS: Ms. Milewski reported on the March Downtown Development Authority meeting. A new director, Jay Hardy has been chosen. There was a long discussion about the Northern Hotel because at the time they were trying to put together funding for the final closing. After settling these matters, Friday was the closing date. The DDA did vote for a portion of their tax increment funding for the project, up to $330,000 and they also have a Landmark Preservation Commissio., March 10, 1999 Meeting Minutes Page 2 contingency to go back to discuss the funding later. The City will also support the project with funds. CONSENT DESIGN REVIEW AGENDA: 144 North College Avenue, Barkley Block — State Tax Credit Part 2 (Carolyn Earl Rehabilitation Grant (Lee Rosen) Ms. Ore moved to approve the consent design review agenda. Ms. Milewski seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. (5-0) CURRENT DESIGN REVIEW: Ms. Tunner said that the applicants came to the LPC back in December 1997 for conceptual review. At that time the item that the Commission suggested they change was their plans was for the doors on the north elevation. She said that they have done that. Mr. Renhowe presented the final renovation plans. He said that this is a continuation of the street facilities project which was completed eight years ago. The north brick building is going to be remodeled in generally the same pattern. They intend to rework and replace brick. The concern that was mentioned over a year ago was on the north elevation, where there are seven existing windows. At the time they planned to replace a few of those windows with doors. They reworked the floor plan to the satisfaction of the client and put those doors between the window openings in order to retain all the windows on the north elevation. The modifications include extending some windows down, to be used as doors on the north and south elevations. He noted that there are no windows on the south elevation now, but some will be added similar to the north side. The east elevation will be very similar to the other facility. On the west elevation they will repair some wall slots and add two more overhead doors. Ms. Ore asked if there would be new windows on the south elevation. Mr. Renhowe said that there are no windows on the south elevation. Mr. Hogestad asked if the applicant favored further redividing the windows to be enlarged on the north elevation, so that one can read the original smaller windows. Mr. Renhowe said that a window frame horizontal mullion exists, which tells them that the upper window was there before. He said that the windows would be made from prefinished wood, painted white. Ms. Tunner asked if all of the sashes would be replaced. Mr. Renhowe said that it would take place in a similar fashion as the other building and that they were not salvageable. Ms. Ore Landmark Preservation Commsion • March 10, 1999 Meeting Minutes Page 3 asked about the addition on the front of the building. She said it was low and out of scale with the traditional high industrial building. Mr. Renhowe said that it was a taller building than the historic streets building. He said that they had struggled with that because the client wanted two story spaces within the building. They tried to come up with a solution that was as simple as possible and did not detract from the historic structure. He explained the uses of the different areas. The offices would be in the front with space for the crew in the back. He said that they used a modern approach to tie the new addition to the other building's addition. Mr. Tanner asked if the glass block was only used in the doors that were created by lowering the window. Mr. Renhowe said that there was no glass block, only glazed block used as an accent. Mr. Hogestad commented in terms of the major building materials, the split face block of a different color doesn't detract from anything, it works pretty well. Mr. Renhowe explained that they were using materials that were used in the Streets Facility new fagade, but the design is a little simpler. Ms. Ore said that the step parapet was a design that was used on buildings around 1910, and is even better than a segmental archway. Mr. Hogestad asked if they needed to vote, because this was not a designated structure. Ms. Tunner said no, this was a final complimentary review. Ms. Ore said that you don't see buildings like that often and she asked if both buildings were from the original Sugar Beet Factory. Mr. Hogestad asked about how wide the bays were for the garage doors. Mr. Renhowe said about twelve feet. Ms. Tunner discussed the history of why the two brick buildings were not designated by the LPC. She said that they had provided excellent interpretation inside on the Sugar Beet Factory's history. Mr. Hogestad asked if there would be any brick replacement. Mr. Renhowe said there would be a lot of brick replacement on the north side. Ms. Tunner asked about the use of the buildings. Mr. Renhowe said it would be traffic control operation. Mr. Hogestad asked if there was any public comment and there was none. Ms. Early asked if the City owned the buildings. Ms. Tunner said that they did. DISCUSSION ITEMS: LPC Support Letters for State Historical Fund Grants: Ms. Tunner explained how the LPC needed to approve sending letters of support to the State Historical Fund for projects seeking City support. There are a number of grant applications going in and the LPC needs to know about the projects before approving them. 1. Andrews House, Restoration and Stabilization, 324 East Oak (CSU) Ms. Stansfield explained that CSU's Facilities Management leases the upper space to a history grad student, who is caring for the building. (Ms. Ore asked if she had a conflict -of -interest because she was in that department. It was decided that she did not.) Mr. White said that the property was owned by CSURF. They are currently preparing a grant for restoration of the property. There was some confusion as to who would. benefit from use of the building. It was determined that the History Department only owns the furnishings. It came Landmark Preservation Commissic.. March 10, 1999 Meeting Minutes Page 4 to CSUF in 1982. In 1992 the Colorado State University Foundation deeded it to CSURF. Mr. White said that the building was built in 1893 and he passed around pictures. He explained that the property needs extensive interior and exterior restoration and they will focus on five principal rooms on the first floor. The second floor has been an apartment since 1977 and is now occupied by a graduate student. So, the second floor has lost some of its historical character, but the first remains remarkably intact. They plan to pull up the carpet, restore the floors, strip the paint from the woodwork, and restore the natural wood finish. Then, they would further enhance the property by installing period style area carpets over the wooden floor, like the Avery house and install period ceiling fixtures, where old plates may exist. On the exterior of the house they plan to remove and restore all three arched windows. Over the years they have been covered with paint again and again and of the three, there is only one original sash. The sashes in the other windows would replicate the original. The cornice molding will also be repaired to match the profile. They plan to strip all the paint on the outside and repaint the structure. Around the house, they will create landscaping, and particularly in the rear, where it was originally a garden. Ms. Stansfield added that the name of the house would also be changed to the Mosman House, for the original builder. The original Mosman stone, which sat in front of the house and had a ring on it to tie a horse is at the museum and they will obtain it. Ms. Ore asked if the original house had wood floors, because carpet was popular for the Victorian style. Ms. Stansfield said that carpet was added in 1977. Mr. White added that they would change the interpretive plaque and they would like to get a picture of Mr. Mosman. Ms. Tunner suggested that they should save the old glass from the windows. Ms. Stansfield talked about William Mosman and how he owned the general mercantile store in town, which allowed him to get materials for his home at cost. She concluded this was why some features in the house were more expensive and finer than more common building materials. Ms. Tunner asked if there was a bulging wall in the back. Ms. Stansfield explained that there was a support missing and the kitchen floor was slanting, but there was no money to do that kind of work now. But, there is no fear that the house is unsound. Mr. Hogestad asked if the replacement of materials would be with similar materials. Mr. White said yes. Mr. Hogestad asked about the condition of the roof, which still is in good condition. Mr. White said that some work needed to be done on the fascia and repointing on the chimney. Ms. Tunner reminded them that there is an exemption for historic buildings so that they can have a wood roof. Mr. White asked if they had to submit plans. Ms. Tunner said she would ask the City Attorney. Ms. Aguilera moved for the LPC to write a support letter for the Andrews House restoration. Ms. Milewski seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. (5-0) 2. Nelson Milk house Rehabilitation, 1035 East Swallow (City Parks/Cultural, Library, and Recreational Services Department) Landmark Preservation ComIssion • March 10, 1999 Meeting Minutes Page 5 Ms. Tunner passed around photos from a digital camera. She explained she is writing a mini grant for this building and asked the Commission for a letter of support. She said that the Parks Department is applying for a new roof, wood cornice and fascia repair, chimney repointing and capping, and repair of the boxed eaves. The other element is to improve the interpretation of the building. The building was designated in 1973, but you can't access the inside. The Lexan windows and door opening coverings were cleaned with harsh chemicals because of vandalism, and it left them opaque. Ms. Tunner would like to get access to the building, with possibly a period styled steel door. She is also looking into an older wood door. Mr. Hogestad did not support the Lexan currently installed over the door opening. Ms. Tunner stressed that the building needs to be very secure. Mr. Hogestad asked if replacement would be in kind. Mr. Tanner asked if there was documentation of what used to be in the windows. Ms. Tunner said that they have a picture from about when the structure was built in 1880, and it shows two over two windows. With another grant they could come back and redo the masonry and the sashes, the frames are there. Mr. Hogestad suggested that the Design Review Sub -Committee take a look at the site and make suggestions. Mr. Tanner moved that the LPC support the writing of a letter applying for a State Historical Fund grant. Ms. Ore seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. (5-0) 3. Streetcar Barn Restoration, 330 North Howes (City Facility Services Department) Ms. Aguilera asked if she had a conflict of interest because she is drawing the plans. Mr. Hogestad said yes. Ms. Aguilera left the meeting. Ms. Tunner explained that Facility Services is applying for a State Historical Fund grant to re -roof the north and south additions to the trolley barn and restore the windows and doors on the front fagade. The original doors were big wooden doors with cross bucks and lights on the top. Two people pass doors on the front of the building would also be restored. It's a Mission style building. Ms. Tunner described how the barn had a higher parapet originally in front with a ten - foot roof lantern and they may or may not rebuild it. (The roof lantern is gone.) The Commission asked staff to bring this back on March 24, when the final restoration plans were more defined. Ms. Ore expressed concern about how permanent the digital images were, they may not be as stable and would the photos still be available in the files in the future. OTHER BUSINESS: 330 North Howes, Streetcar Barn — Correction of the Designation to Include All of South Addition and the North Addition (Karen McWilliams Preservation Planner) Landmark Preservation CommissiL March 10, 1999 Meeting Minutes Page 6 Ms. Tunner provided the original designation, which included the main barn and only a portion of the south addition. She explained the history of the property and the designation and the legal description. Mr. Tanner moved that the LPC approve the amendment of Ordinance 95 of 1992 to include the proposed revisions as described. Ms. Milewski seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. (4-0) Ms. Tunner explained that the City had been thinking of tearing down the south addition because it looked so bad. It was covered with paint when the sign shop was in there. It is bigger heavier brick and it does not match the rest of the building. The 1925 fire insurance maps showed that it had existed at that time. Ms. Tunner explained that the brick used was actually found to be street railway pavers. Each brick has a spacer on the four corners, used to lay the pavers and the bricks are marked TRINIDAD. This makes the addition very significant. The meeting adjourned 7:00 p.m. Submitted by Nicole Sneider, Secretary and transcribed from the tape of the meeting.