HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 03/24/1999•
LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
February 24, 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 heard a conceptual review of the removal of
a 1976 metal bin structure and construction of a new bin structure at 546
Willow, the Ranch -Way Feed Mills, and plans for an addition to the St.
Joseph's School, at 127 North Howes. The LPC gave final approval to the
fagade rehabilitation of the Reed and Beals Block and Star Grocery at 160 —
164 North College Avenue. The LPC approved the proposed treatment of the
fagade pilasters at 150 North College. The LPC recommended recipients for
the Outstanding Historic Renovation Award and the Friend of Preservation
Award and grants for the 1999 Local Landmark Rehabilitation grant program.
The LPC also supported staff's intent to write the Zoning Board of Appeals on
behalf of the owners of 152 West Mountain Avenue, requesting a sign code
variance for the old Scrivner's Grocery sign on the building.
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Mr. Hogestad called the meeting to order at 5:38
p.m., at 281 North College Avenue. Commission members James Tanner, Angie
Aguilera and Janet Ore were present. Rande Pouppirt arrived late. Bud Frick and
Angela Milewski were absent. Carol Tunner, Joe Frank, Timothy Wilder and Karen
McWilliams represented staff.
GUESTS: Kim and Bonnie Szidon, owners and managers of Ranch -Way Feeds, at 546
Willow; Rick Hattman, Hattman Assoc., Architecture and Planning, representing 127
North Howes, St. Joseph's School; Ellen and Ted Zibell, owners 160-164 North College
Avenue; Chip Steiner, citizen; Richard Pardias, represented the owner of Surfside 7, at
150 North College; Chris Penner and Rick Harter, 152 W. Mountain.
AGENDA REVIEW: Mr. Hogestad wanted to bring up a couple of issues, which may
affect the LPC, for discussion under other business.
STAFF REPORTS: Ms. Tunner passed around the City Budget preparation material.
The budget will be discussed further at the second LPC meeting in March.
COMMISSION MEMBERS' REPORTS: None.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Tanner changed the January 27, 1999 LPC minutes on
page three, the last paragraph to read "...and you would hardly notice that the addition
was there."
Landmark Preservation Commisu,on
February 24, 1999 Meeting Minutes
Page 2
Ms. Ore moved to approve the January 27, 1999 meeting minutes. Mr. Tanner
seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. (4-0)
CURRENT DESIGN REVIEW:
Ms. Tunner explained that the owners would like to demolish a 1976 bin structure and
build another 104 foot high structure, with the future possibility of a phase two bin as
well. The 1976 bin sits in front of the historic brick building. She explained that at a
pre -conceptual review a year ago with staff, there were concerns with the original
proposal and wanted to see the new structure go up to the northwest of the historic
building. Staff also suggested that they not clean up the historic apparatus, but rather
only demolish the 1976 structure. Some of the conveyor belts will be moved to the new
building. Staff also suggested that the new structure have an open and transparent like
design. They were also concerned with what would happen to the rest of the buildings
when operations are moved to the new bin.
Mr. Szidon explained that the first phase would be the automation of the packaging line.
He brought pictures in to see what it would look like. The other phase would be years
down the road. When the existing bin comes down, it would expose part of the historic
brick building that was built in 1864. Ms. Ore asked which other buildings were historic.
The silos were built in 1920 and the crib house was built in the 1860s. It is a very
significant stacked plank structure. Ms. Tunner asked when the white gabled roof
appeared on the brick building. Mr. Szidon explained a fire in 1976 had damaged the
head -house and modernization brought on all of the apparatus above the roofline. He
showed the original picture of the mill that was in the brochure. Mr. Hogestad asked if
the new bin structure was free-standing and Mr. Szidon said yes. He added that the
warehouse that the new bin structure will rise out of was built in the 1960s out of cinder
block, with steel rafters and a metal roof. He explained that phase one additions would
go behind the conveyor and phase two would be replacing the conveyor.
Ms. Tunner said that the original windows on the brick building may be exposed when
the bin comes down. Mr. Szidon showed how the apparatus would work and how the
conveyors would be redesigned. Ms. Szidon said it would be safer than driving the feed
around with forklifts. Mr. Szidon also explained the reason for the explosion panels. He
said that they were asking for approval of phase one now. Mr. Hogestad asked if the
new structure would be steel and what the louvers were for. Mr. Szidon called them bin
stiffeners to hold the bin together. Mr. Hogestad asked if they could sheet over them.
Mr. Szidon said yes, but it would look like a metal -sheeted bin. Mr. Hogestad asked
about the usage of the historic brick building. Mr. Szidon explained that the usage
would be the same. Ms. Ore asked if the new bin would impact the historic structures
visually. Mr. Szidon said that the new additions would take a lot of stress off the historic
buildings. Ms. Szidon invited the Commission to come and look at the almost ancient
equipment and building material and methods, he said that they would remain that way.
Landmark Preservation C041mission •
February 24, 1999 Meeting Minutes
Page 3
Rande Pouppirt arrived 6:00 p.m.
Ms. Ore asked if the silos were still used. The Szidons explained that every inch of the
facility was used. Mr. Hogestad asked if there were other locations for the proposed
tower. Mr. Szidon said that it needed to be close by and centrally located for the
process to occur efficiently and safely. Ms. Ore asked if the function of the building
dictated what it had to look like. Mr. Szidon said that the older silos were made from
slip form concrete. Ms. Ore asked if the new structure could be made round or smooth
and commented that it would be a very dominating structure. Mr. Szidon said that he
would have to consult with the engineer. Ms. Ore discussed that it was a newer
structure and in a different shape, and its construction would show the evolution of the
site. Mr. Szidon said that slip form construction needed a lot of room to set up, but it
would be longer -lived because it was not as susceptible to salt corrosion as the metal.
Mr. Tanner said that the newer building should appear clearly contemporary and distinct
from the older ones. If the newer building was rounder it would de -emphasis the
historic structures on the site. Ms. Ore agreed, but thought that the newer structure
should be de-emphasized. Mr. Tanner said that it would be hard to de-emphasize a tall
tower, but they should keep it distinct from the historic structures. Mr. Hogestad said
that he had no problem with this piece being functional and contemporary. Ms. Szidon
explained that it was a modem adaptation to stay competitive. Mr. Hogestad said that
the site was a working history. He said that they would need more documentation
including dimensions, materials and color for final review. Ms. Ore suggested that they
visit the site too, because it may be confusing to look at it on the slides. Ms. Szidon
described the colors for the buildings and that she would like something other than
white. Ms. Ore said that white was very popular in the 1920s. Mr. Hogestad asked if
there was any public input, and there was none.
Ms. Tunner explained that St. Joseph's Parish needed an addition for the church
school. The original building was Spanish Colonial Revival with a one-story addition.
The reason they need more room was because of crowding in the administrative
building, the school does not connect to the parish office, and they need handicap
access to the school and the parish office. Ms. Tunner suggested that they use the
natural slope of the ground to create access for the handicapped. She added that the
proposed entrance addition would be set back and not cover windows or historic
architectural features. The 1965 ambulatory would be cut back for the addition. Mr.
Hattman explained the history of the church and the school. The church was built in
1900 and the original school opened in 1925. He outlined the changes made to the
buildings over time. Currently two hundred eighty students are enrolled in the school in
grades K through 6. He said that phase one would handle the expansion of the school
for certain necessities, including new curriculum requirements using computers and
multi -media equipment and expanded library. The parish also needed additional space
for meeting and activities. They also must keep outdoor playground space and
conserve open space for sports on the site. People in the neighborhood would also
Landmark Preservation Commis.,.on —
February 24, 1999 Meeting Minutes
Page 4
benefit from open space. Mr. Hattman said that the circulation pattern was a challenge
and he wanted to establish the library and computer room in a central location. He
added that he would leave the front of the historic school and its details on Howes
Street untouched.
Ms. Tunner said that she showed the design of the entrance to James Stratis of the
C.H.S. and he liked it, but would take out the two square windows. Mr. Hattman
explained that those squares were only a detail in the brick and not windows. He said
that they were similar to the details on the main elevation, and created a sympathetic
element. Mr. Hattman explained that he was able to eliminate the handicap access
ramp and use a more shallow grade to approach the entrance, as Ms. Tunner had
recommended. He described the office space, which had a reception area and an area
for the secretaries. The bathrooms did not meet ADA requirements and they would
take down part of the gymnasium building and then rebuild with an elevator and other
ADA requirements.
The Commission and Mr. Hattman discussed materials and how they would relate to
the original structure. He showed sample pieces of the Robinson brick in Ivory Matte,
the Split Face Block, Valley Block #254, used to imitate the sandstone lintel and window
sill and the matching doors and roof material. Mr. Hattman said that the courtyard was
created as a private space for the church and it would be gated because they were
experiencing some problems with vandalism. He described the massing of the addition
against he gymnasium. He said that on the original proposal he depicted a flat roof or a
slope roof along the entire length. Then, he reduced it to a parapet roof, making it
appear less obtrusive. He also reduced the size of the building to sixty feet in order to
lessen its mass and scale and there would be no battered walls, except on the center
portion.
Mr. Hogestad asked why he chose those proportions for the windows. They
commented on the east elevation and Mr. Hattman explained that they there were two
double hung windows together. Mr. Hogestad noted that the existing windows had
different proportions. Mr. Hattman explained that the windows were different because
of different floor to ceiling heights in new construction. Mr. Hogestad recommended he
pull them apart a bit to get a taller window that would relate back to the originals better.
He added that the windows were very important to the overall proportions. Mr. Tanner
commented that then they would loose the sense of clusters of windows, if you
separated them. Ms. Ore asked if they would look multi -paned and Mr. Hattman said
yes. She also asked if the addition would be the same height or a little bigger. Mr.
Hattman said it would be 24 feet at the eaves and the original building was 26 at the
eaves. Mr. Pouppirt asked about the block used for the windowsills and the water table
band along the bottom. Mr. Hattman showed him an example of the material.
Mr. Hogestad asked if there was any public opinion and there was none. He said that
he liked the massing of the building and the way it related to the original. He said that
the courtyard might be a little narrow. Ms. Ore said that it might be dark. Mr. Hogestad
asked if they had tried putting the addition along the side of the gym. Mr. Hattman said
Landmark Preservation Co mission •
February 24, 1999 Meeting Minutes
Page 5
that they tried that configuration, but they would like to keep the classrooms separate
from the play area and there were underground physical constraints in that area. Mr.
Tanner said that Mr. Hattman did a nice job overall and it was good that they did not
touch the older building. Mr. Hogestad and Ms. Ore agreed that they should further
study the configuration of the windows.
160 — 164 North College Avenue. Reed and Beals Block and Star Grocery —
Ms. Tunner said that this project was in for final review and construction drawings were
submitted. The applicants were looking for some direction from the LPC on how to
proceed with the stucco removal and fagade reconstruction. They would like to infill the
brick on 164 and need to rebuild the fagade on 160. Mr. Zibell said that he met with
James Stratis who was supportive of the changes in their plans. Mr. Zibell said that
most of the stucco was removed from 164 and flat brick with an I-beam installed over
the face was exposed. He would like to infill using a flat brick face. He does not have
good photo -documentation of the brickwork, but they think that a 1920s photo showed a
flat face brick rather than a stepped brick face. Mr. Zibell said that 160 was a little more
complicated. The fagade had the original wood structural beam with a retrofitted (-
beam underneath it. The features of the brick had been chiseled off to make a flat
face. They would need to shore up the fagade because it was becoming unstable.
Their options were to re -stucco the fagade or rebuild because the brick was so loose.
They could use photographs and what they found underneath to replicate what was
originally there. Mr. Zibell said that he has old brick of the same size, color, surface,
and shape and would reuse whatever brick they could. He added that a structural
engineer suggested that they rebuild too. Ms. Tunner asked if they would include the
pilasters, which they would. Mr. Pouppirt commented that the signband should not
cover the dentils. Mr. Zibell said that they had redrawn the signband on the new plans.
Mr. Zibell said that there was one other issue, adding a doorway to the rear courtyard in
the alley and windows to catch some southern exposure. The back section is a cinder
block addition with no architectural features. The windows would be anodized frames in
bronze.
Mr. Zibell said that they were confident that they were building to photo -documentation.
Mr. Pouppirt asked about the reflector unit on the end of the light fixture. The lights are
gooseneck and are similar to the ones on the Perennial Gardener. Ms. Tunner said
that the gooseneck type light fixture was recommended in the Historic Old Town
guidelines. Mr. Tanner asked about the color scheme for the buildings. Ms. Tunner
has a copy of the color scheme with the submittal materials from the conceptual review.
Ms. Zibell said that she would like to revisit the color scheme. Mr. Hogestad asked if
there was any public input, and there was none.
Ms. Ore moved to approve for final review the application at 160 and 164 North
College Avenue, except for the color scheme that will be brought back at a later
date. Mr. Tanner seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. (5-0)
Landmark Preservation Commission
February 24, 1999 Meeting Minutes
Page 6
IOU IYOUL" %1011Ug6. AUr1blUC / -I[ OCIIIIIWIL UI r ayGUC rIIUQ1LCIS IJUIIII 1 FU111101
Ms. Tunner introduced Richard Pardias, who represented John Trujillo, owner of
Surfside 7. She explained that they would like to place wood, with attached antique
surfboards on the pilasters on either side of the building. The original pilasters were
covered with z-brick and are in bad shape because of the glue that was left behind.
She suggested that they attach the surfboards without attaching it to the original brick.
They will use an overhang bracket and attach another bracket to the concrete sidewalk.
Mr. Pardias said that they would first install a finished, stained wood board and then a
manufactured antique surfboard modeled after those of the turn of the century. They
prefer to hide the pilasters until they can restore the entire fagade. Mr. Tanner asked if
the surfboards would overhang the pilasters. Mr. Pardias said the surfboards would be
the same width of seventeen inches or less and there would be no overhang. Mr.
Hogestad asked if they would attach the bracket to the underside of the soffit. Mr.
Pardias added that they would use finished, rounded nuts and bolts. Mr. Hogestad said
that it looked like there would be about one -quarter inch of room from the brackets. Ms.
Ore asked if there were any other changes being made to the fagade. Mr. Pardias said
only signage. Mr. Tanner thought that this design would be compatible with the existing
wood fagade. He suggested that they paint the wood behind the surfboards, so they
would stick out more. Mr. Hogestad added that if painted, it would weather better too.
Ms. Aguilera said that the angle iron brackets could also be painted.
Mr. Pouppirt said that he did not like the surfboards. He said that there was too much
effort to restore beautiful historic features downtown and that this was only adding to a
building that was already a mishmash. He felt that they were really taking it over the
edge and it would appear more comical, when downtown is not comical. Ms. Ore said
that as the building is, it is only contributing. Mr. Hogestad added that they are not
taking away from the historic architecture of the building. Ms. Ore asked if this was an
issue of aesthetics or historic preservation. She asked if they needed to consider how it
affects the character of the buildings surrounding it. Ms. Tunner referred to the
Secretary of the Interior's Standard #7, which addressed whether a building was
compatible with the surround neighborhood and environment. Ms. Aguilera said that
the proposed changes would be temporary and reversible. Mr. Pardias explained that
they were in the process of putting together funding for a full rehabilitation and they are
working with the landlord to get financing for fagade work. Currently, they think that the
building is an eyesore on the outside and they are just looking for a quick fix. Ms.
Aguilera asked if the surfboards on the outside would be conflicting with the fagade,
once it was restored. Mr. Pouppirt said that he likes the surfboard sign, but not the
ones on either side. Mr. Pardias said that they do not want the surfboards to stand out.
They want to stay within the theme of the restaurant and stay classic. Mr. Tanner said
to think about the buildings next door and asked if there were similar wood coverings
that would be more sympathetic. Mr. Pardias thought it would be an enhancement for
the neighbors to see anything improve the fagade. Mr. Tanner asked whether this was
an aesthetic question or a preservation question, and said that Mr. Pouppirt made a
good point. Ms. Tunner discussed restoring the pilasters, instead of first investing in
covering them up. Mr. Hogestad asked if there was any public input, and there was
none.
Landmark Preservation Commission •
February 24, 1999 Meeting Minutes
Page 7
Mr. Tanner moved to approve the proposed treatment of the fagade pilasters for
150 North College Avenue with the caveat that the LPC prefers that attempts to
remove the glue be made first. Ms. Aguilera seconded the motion. (4-1)
(Yeas:Hogestad, Tanner, Ore, Aguilera) (Nays: Pouppirt)
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
1999 Outstanding Historic Renovation Award and Friend of Preservation Award
Decisions (Carol Tunner. Preservation Planner)
Ms. Tunner reported that the following projects were discussed last meeting for possible
recipients of the Friend of Preservation Award: 629 West Mountain Ave., for the
sensitive addition; Don Woeber, and Parks and Recreation Department of the City of
Fort Collins for saving the cannon in its present location in City Park; the Historic Fort
Collins Development Corporation, GTE Land and Dave Lawser for preserving the
Preston Farm complex; Mayor Ann Azari. The following projects were discussed for
recipients of the Outstanding Historic Renovation Award: Vaught Frye Architects, Dohn
Construction and Veldman Morgan for the renovation of 200 Walnut, the Forrester
Block, and the owners (Bruce Biggi and Jennifer Kathol) of 1320 West Oak for the
restoration of the masonry on their home.
Mr. Hogestad asked the Commission if they could think of any other projects and told
staff that they were in favor of these award recipients.
Mr. Hogestad left the meeting because of a conflict -of -interest and announced that the
issues he wanted to discuss under other business would be addressed at a later date.
Mr. Wilder presented requests for 1997 grant extensions for the following projects:
1. Doug Gennetten said that he had unanticipated project delays for 251 Linden Street.
2. John Arnolfo, owner of the Silver Grill was also receiving a State Historical Society
Grant and would like to coordinate these funds along with the local grant funds.
Staff recommended that they grant the extension because of the listed circumstances.
Mr. Pouppirt moved to grant the extensions. Ms. Aguilera seconded the motion,
which passed unanimously. (5-0)
Mr. Wilder handed out the ranking score totals. He reviewed the score and announced
that the requested running total was $28,401. $30,433 was the available total, due to
projects that were never completed throughout the years. He also explained that Mr.
Gennetten's requested funds needed to be carried over to 1999, but were not counted
towards the $28,401 total requested funds. Mr. Pouppirt asked Mr. Wilder to explained
the 251 Linden Street project, which included window replacement with single pane,
double hung windows to maintain the historic character, re -roofing, and structural repair
to the roof. He added that the project had ranked high under preservation need.
Landmark Preservation Commis., on
February 24, 1999 Meeting Minutes
Page 8
Mr. Wilder explained that the Commission could choose to fund all or only some of the
projects. First, he asked if the LPC agreed with the ranking scores. Then, he asked
how they would like to do the allocations. He added that the applicants had been
invited to attend the meeting, but none had come. Mr. Frank asked if Mr. Wilder had a
recommendation. Mr. Wilder said that he would advise the Commission to consider not
funding all of the projects on the list. Ms. Ore said that she had concerns over the
project involving the barn and that it was not in keeping with historic character of a barn.
Ms. Aguilera agreed. She said from projects ranked one through five you see a large
gap in the ranking score.
Mr. Pouppirt moved to fund projects ranked one through five.
Mr. Wilder reviewed the projects and projects that the Commission would not be
funding. He also asked if there were additional projects to be funded on top of the six.
Mr. Tanner asked why the ranking scores might have dropped so significantly after the
first six. Mr. Wilder explained that sometimes it was the significance of the structure or
matching funds. Mr. Tanner said it would be nice to have $10,000 for the future for
more pressing projects in the future. Mr. Pouppirt said that there were not too many
pressing projects this year and questioned whether it should be considered in the
future. Mr. Frank explained that in years past it has not really been that way. Ms. Ore
said that she felt that a roof was a homeowner's responsibility and some roofing
projects were ranked pretty high.
Ms. Ore moved that we accept 924 West Magnolia.
She said that water was coming in on the wood floor and there were few projects that
had direct endangerment to the structure like this one. Mr. Tanner said that they do
have a rating system and would need more rationale for pulling just one project out for
funding. Mr. Wilder explained that the project was ranked lower because the applicant
had fewer matching funds than other projects. He added that this part of the ranking
was made clear on the grant application. There was no second for Ms. Ore's motion.
Mr. Hogestad asked if there was any public input and there was none.
Mr. Pouppirt moved to include 251 Linden Street in the grant awards for 1999.
Ms. Aguilera seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. (4-0)
Mr. Pouppirt moved to fund projects ranked one through five and use the one-
year allocation amount ($20,000). Ms. Aguilera seconded the motion, which
passed unanimously. (4-0)
OTHER BUSINESS: Chris Penner and Rick Harter of the Stakeout Saloon, 152 West
Mountain Avenue, sought a letter of support for the Zoning Board of Appeals for a sign
code variance. Ms. McWilliams explained that they have been doing exploratory
Landmark Preservation CoRmission •
February 24, 1999 Meeting Minutes
Page 9
demolition of the building fagade and have uncovered an old sign, advertising Scrivner's
grocery. The building is not designated. If the building were designated this old sign
would not count towards the sign allowance. Mr. Harter explained that the Scrivner's
sign itself was eighty-four square feet. Mr. Penner explained that they would like a
letter of support from staff to keep the sign and to add signage for their business. Mr.
Harter said that they would like sixty-four square feet for their business signage, that
they would use a sign type that worked with the older sign, and that the new sign would
look appropriate next to it. Ms. McWilliams reported to the Commission that Mr.
Hogestad had previously reviewed the issue and was in support of it. Ms. Ore said that
it should be considered an artifact of the building and should not count against the
current business for their sign allowance. They were told to coat the old sign with
anything to protect from the sun. Ms. Ore asked why not cover it up. Mr. Harter
explained that there were already holes in the front of the building from when it was
covered up. Mr. Tanner asked if they would fill the holes. Mr. Harter said that they
would where they needed to. He added that they were doing research on the history of
that building and the one next door. Mr. Tanner said that their own sign should be
distinguishable from the older sign. Ms. Aguilera said that the new signage would
appear fresher and brighter, and that they should use a different font that still
coordinates with the older lettering. Mr. Penner said that he felt strongly about keeping
the sign and that it fits in with what they are trying to do with the historic character
downtown. The LPC supports staff in writing a letter to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
The meeting adjourned 8:45 p.m.
Submitted by Nicole Sneider, Secretary