Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 12/09/1998( -e e""-S LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting December 9, 1998 Council Liaison: Scott Mason (226 — 4824) Staff Liaison: Joe Frank (221-6376) Commission Chairperson: Per Hogestad (303-292-1875) SUMMARY OF MEETING: The exterior rehabilitation of 314 East Mulberry, the Repogle/Bennett Home, was approved for State Tax Credit. An extension for State Tax Credit for the Anna B. Miller house, at 514 East Elizabeth was approved. The LPC approved selective exploration and structural work for 210 — 218 Walnut and 251 Linden. Plans for a fagade restoration at 160 —164 North College Avenue were reviewed. The LPC also reviewed plans for a fagade restoration at 115 South College Avenue and the revised site plan for the Rule Farm. The LPC passed the State Tax Credit reviewing resolution for 1999, for the Colorado Historical Society to continue the review. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Mr. Hogestad called the meeting to order 5:30, p.m., at 281 North College Avenue. Commission members Angela Milewski, James Tanner, Janet Ore, Angie Aguilera and Rande Pouppirt were present. Joe Frank, Carol Tunner and Karen McWilliams represented Staff. GUESTS: Margie Marshall, owner, 514 East Elizabeth; Dianne and Dick Rule, owners, the Rule Farm; Joe Shrader, Developer and Builder, John Winter, Developer, Andrea Dunlap, Real Estate Broker, K. Merl Haworth, Architect, for the Rule Farm Project; Bud Frick, citizen; Tim and Ellen Zibell, owners, 160 — 164 North College Avenue; Les Kaplan, owner, 115 South College Avenue and Bob Mechels, Vaught/Frye Architects; Richard Beardmore, A-E Design Associates, P.C. AGENDA REVIEW: Ms. Tunner added under other business, a discussion of the Nelson house and a compatible re -roofing; which is a request from the Parks and Recreation Department. STAFF REPORTS: Ms. Tunner handed out the Christmas party invitations. COMMISSION MEMBERS' REPORTS: Ms. Milewski attended the DDA meeting and reported that they are looking for a new Executive Director because Chip Steiner is resigning after about fifteen years. It will be a pretty intensive search, because he was an important part of their association. The other items that pertained to projects that the LPC has been involved with included: they are helping with the funding for the Perennial Gardener to expand into the adjacent buildings at 160-164 N. College. They would also be receiving a fagade easement for the buildings. Landmark Preservation Commission December 9, 1998 Meeting Minutes Page 2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Tanner corrected page 2 of the October 14, 1998 LPC meeting minutes. He changed "approved" to "moved to approve". Ms. Milewski moved to accept the October 14, 1998 LPC meeting minutes as amended. Mr. Tanner seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. (5-0) CONSENT AGENDA: 314 East Mulberry, Replogle/Bennett Home — Exterior Rehabilitation for State Tax Credit, Part 2 (Carolyn Goodwin) 514 East Elizabeth, Anna B. Miller Home — Extension for State Tax Credit and Additional Interior Wood Molding Restoration (Margie Marshall) Mr. Tanner moved to approve the items on the consent agenda. Ms. Ore seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. (5-0) Ms. Tunner explained that any State Tax Credit project must be completed by the end 1999, because the bill is being re-examined by the State Legislature. Ms. Marshall told the Commission that she did not install the fireplace gas insert, because it was not approved as part of the State Tax Credit. She would probably complete that at a later date. CURRENT DESIGN REVIEW: 251 Linden, Robertson Haynes Block (Conceptual) and 210 — 218 Walnut. Silver [,rill (I lnelata Ravicari nacinn Rachel — Faeaela Raefnrafinne fnr 1 nral 1 anrlmaA- ill al ILO a11Y ®La LC IaA Lit CYIL— nI1711a1U OCaI UII WLC. A-C YC51[yll NSOOGIAL6S. IL1G. Mr. Beardmore, Preservation Engineer with A-E Design Associates, presented both projects. He explained that John Arnolfo, owner of the Silver Grill, now wanted more of a restoration rather than a renovation. He has a State Historical Fund Grant for five buildings. Mr. Beardmore said that he would like to present an update on the Silver Grill first and then the conceptual plans for 251 Linden. He added that both projects were using the State Tax Credit program and both were submitted in time for local review. Ms. Tunner added that the projects also received a Local Landmark Rehabilitation Grant. Mr. Beardmore said that Bud Frick was the architect of record for the Silver Grill project. They would like to do an exploratory, on -site, investigation, and to determine how and if they can strip the paint. They need to determine what is the condition of the brick. They are also interested in selective demolition to see other elements of the fagade. He reported that James Stratis, of the Colorado State Historical Society, visited the site and gave his input, which was also included in the presentation. The owner is now interested in doing a restoration on the five storefronts and taking them back according to photo -documentation. This means that there would be subtle differences among the Landmark Preservation Commi • December 9. 1998 Me2g Minu Page 3 buildings, because they were built at different times. Mr. Beardmore added that Mark Thombum was the contractor. Mr. Beardmore explained that on 218 Walnut it would be more of a restoration than rehabilitation. The fagade would be taken back to the historic elements from photo - documentation. They would go back to the original height of the transom glass, use beadboard kickplates and Victorian elements. He added that they would also like to go further into the interior and restore the ceilings too. For the main entrance of the Silver Grill, at 214 Walnut, they would like to restore the existing elements. To the left and right of the main entrance, 212 and 216 Walnut, they still need to do more discovery work. A rounded window storefront exists, with a Greek Key design system. On 210, they would like to remove the perma-stone, but are unsure that there is anything historic left. Mr. Beardmore said that they would look for ghost lines and that it needed some structural work to support the brick parapet. He explained that the four buildings to the left shared an element of the wood cornice. He added that they would use awnings of similar color to bring it all together. They will bring in the details and colors for review later. Ms. Ore asked when the fagade was installed on 216 Walnut. Mr. Beardmore said 1960 and Mr. Frick added that the octagonal and take-out diner window were probably installed in the 1950s. Ms. Milewski asked about the signage. Mr. Beardmore explained that they were not far enough along in the process, but Shaw Signs was working on it. Mr. Hogestad was interested in how they would be doing the demolition work. How would they be stripping the paint off the brick in particular? Mr. Beardmore explained they would do selective peel-aways and that the paint is in several layers. They would also look at the kickplates by removing the interior panels. The owner of 251 Linden is Doug Gennetten. Mr. Beardmore explained they he was interested in a traditional restoration. He added that and there was good photo - documentation. They would like to restore the windows and they are hoping that there is an existing column encased in the brick pilaster. The building may still have exposed round -steel columns. One of them may have been removed, when it was converted into a garage. He explained that the brick on this building is probably in better shape than the Silver Grill. It has latex paint, which would be easier to remove and less layers. There is also good documentation of the missing cornice piece. The second floor is sagging, so they would do a structural re -enforcement. Mr. Beardmore explained that they would like permission to begin the structural re - enforcement. In March or April they would like to complete the re -roofing for the Local Landmark Rehabilitation grant. Ms. Tunner added that it must be done by April. They are also looking for a potential tenant for the first floor. Mr. Beardmore explained that they could see evidence of a sister staircase that lead to a back entrance. They are also interested in re -framing an existing skylight above the front stairwell. He pointed out a fire escape on the rear of the building, where they would like to convert back to the original window. He said that the stucco on the rear was sound and they would keep it. They were also interested in restoring the rear delivery doors to operational Landmark Preservation Commission December 9, 1998 Meeting Minutes Page 4 condition. Ms. Ore asked when the rear garage doors were installed. Mr. Beardmore said at least the 1930s. Ms. Tunner said that they might be able to look it up in the City directory. The Commission discussed the changes in use of the building over time. Originally there was wood -flooring and it was first used as a dry goods store and then automotive, when the floor was changed to concrete. It was called the Robertson/Haynes Block, with the building next door. Robertson was in the dry goods business and Haynes was an attorney with offices upstairs. Mr. Beardmore presented the framing plan with the structural re -enforcement and the skylight. Mr. Hogestad asked if there was any citizen input, and the guests agreed that it sounded great. Ms. Milewski moved to allow the selective exploration, plus structural re - enforcement as presented for 210 — 218 Walnut and 251 Linden. Ms. Aguilera seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. (5-0) The Zibells are interested in rehabilitating two buildings at 160-164 N. College and then connecting them to 154 — 156 North College Avenue, the Perennial Gardener. They plan to connect them with an interior archway door to expand their space. They presented to the Commission plans for exploratory demolition and a rehabilitation concept. They have received a mini -grant of ten thousand dollars from the State Historical Society. James Stratis visited the site already. They have also applied for a Local Landmark Rehabilitation Grant and a Downtown Development Authority Grant. Mr. Hogestad informed the Commission that he believed there was no conflict -of - interest, because he also had applied for a Local Landmark Rehabilitation Grant. Ms. Tunner commented on the Zibell's plans and said that the mullions between the windows don't seem to match the plan view on the bottom. Mr. Zibell explained that they are working with a structural engineer and contractor. Ms. Tunner asked if there were transoms on the building originally. Mr. Zibell said that they only have pictures with the awnings down, except for views that are too far away. He does believe that the buildings have their original tin ceilings. He added that Mr. Stratis thought that the mullions looked too wide, but the State will review that. Mr. Zibell explained that Mr. Stratis did not recommend exploring removing the stucco from the brick. He recommended it be re -built. When you turn the brick you can sometimes see the score and kiln marks. When they restored the Perennial Gardener, they removed the stucco from the brick and with it eighty percent of the brick face. There is also evidence that the existing stucco was part of the structure. It may be serving as support for the brick and is one-half inch thick. The same situation existed on the rear of the Perennial Gardener. A 1928 photo showed a simple fagade with some dog toothing on the brick. Mr. Zibell said that exploration was not necessary to see the historic brick detail. Mr. Zibell said that one option is to remove some of the stucco and see if they can turn the brick. But, they are concerned that it would be too damaged to use to rebuild. Another option would be to find brick that matched the older brick. This was the approach that James Stratis had recommended, because it was the most prudent and Landmark Preservation Commis • December 9, 1998 Meeting Minutes Page 5 logical. Mr. Hogestad asked if Mr. Stratis had addressed the width of the mortar joints. Mr. Zibell said that they would probably be left with thicker mortar joints, because the new brick is smaller. He added that they would not have to match the brick to the Perennial Gardener. Ms. Tunner explained that Mr. Stratis had only casually reviewed it, was not officially on the project and has not seen the details. The project would have to go through the State Historical Society and their requirements. Ms. Ore asked if they considered leaving the stucco. Mr. Zibell said that they are more interested in returning it to its historic look and would like the feel of a downtown boutique. Ms. Tunner showed slides. She asked about the headers and the beams, but Mr. Zibell needs to do some exploration. Ms. Zibell added that they don't want to damage the brick on the buildings next to the Perennial Gardener, because it may start to look run down. Mr. Hogestad suggested that they get a larger than standard brick, called "Scotty Brick" and they should call the Denver Brick Company. Mr. Zibell pointed out where the dog toothing had existed. He would also like to carry the line of the storefront windows from the Perennial Gardener. Ms. Milewski pointed out that you could see the original brick on interior walls through the storefront, so they may want to match it. Mr. Hogestad said that it looked like a different width of mortar on the interior. Mr. Zibell explained that they use a different grade of brick for interior work. He said that they would need to speak to the State Historical Society to see if new brick would work and then they would come back to the LPC. Mr. Tanner said that if they needed to turn the brick, they would need to rebuild it anyway. Ms. Milewski added that they had good photo -documentation to match the brick and the mortar lines. During citizen input, Mr. Beardmore commented that they used new brick in the Children's Mercantile and that they were not able to get a tight butter joint. He explained, because of the process used to extrude bricks today, you can't get a uniform color and it is hard to get a special order. He recommended brick from the G.W. Sugar Plant that was being salvaged in Loveland. Mr. Zibell said that the color would be slightly different if they turned the bricks. DISCUSSION ITEMS: Mr. Mechels, architect, described the storefront as it exists. "Threads" has a nice granite storefront and Nico's Catacombs and T-Shirt Gallery storefronts are arcaded. The second floor wood windows are intact, but need work. The top cornice on the building is metal and in good shape. "Threads" has bronze mullions and Greek key vents in the granite. It was probably done in the 1920s. The arcading was done twenty-five years ago, as well as the arched brick entry to the second floor. James Stratis of the State Historical fund also visited this site. The granite storefront has achieved significance, but he explained that the top of the building does not speak to the bottom. The Catacombs also needs to have a highly viable entry. Mr. Kaplan explained that the building has undergone a lot of changes over time. He had a picture of the building during the late Victorian period, one from a parade in the Landmark Preservation Commission--� December 9, 1998 Meeting Minutes Page 6 1960s, and one of the five and dime around the 1940s. He explained two major things about the project. One was the arcading, which had to remain, because it was essential for the tenant. Another thing was that a structural support had been removed when the building was changed to the 1920s granite storefront. It was removed from the first floor, down into the ground. He explained that the structural support was economically impossible to restore. He asked how they could bring the building back to the uniform look, with kickplates, transoms, wooden mullions and the support system from 1905. Mr. Mechels said that they are looking for some direction and would like to come up with a good solution within the economic boundaries. Mr. Mechels showed different plans of how to deal with the arcade. They could remove the metal awning and rebuild with the dead space enclosed by railings. Then they would tie the doorway in with the entryway and carry a windscreen across the front, creating unity. Mr. Ore asked if they would remove the granite kickplates. Mr. Mechels explained what they talked about with Mr. Stratis about going, back to the original historic storefront. They talked about removing the structural support beam behind the transom glass. But, it would be too expensive to remove. They would need to alter the beam to make it less intrusive behind the transom glass. Mr. Mechels thought that they could box out the beam or add ornamentation and make it a sign band. Mr. Kaplan added that it was hard to get the right height of the window, because the beam exists behind it. Higher windows would add more light into the space. He explained to keep the granite kickplates, they could not install tall vertical windows. He explained that he would like to bring the building back and deal with the constraints that exist. Ms. Ore suggested using prismatic glass, instead of clear glass in the transom, to hide the beam. Mr. Mechels said that if the beam were painted black it would disappear at night. Ms. Ore added that prismatic glass would also be appropriate for the time period. Mr. Mechels said that from photos you could see that they used clear glass. Mr. Kaplan expressed his interest in going back to the original and not to install something new to try and bring it back to the 1920s. Ms. Milewski said that if the beam needed to stay it should not be decorated, to bring attention to it. Mr. Ore added that the 1905 building was more Classical, than Victorian. During citizen input, Mr. Frick asked how far back the beam was set from the storefront. Mr. Kaplan said about four inches. Mr. Frick agreed that they should paint it black. Mr. Beardmore offered a second opinion regarding the stabilization process and removing the beam. He suggested that they call Mark Thornburn of University Builders. Mr. Tanner asked if they had thought about restoring the 1920s granite and continued that across the arcaded storefront. Mr. Kaplan said it would have no transoms, it was a nine -foot versus a thirteen -foot window, and he wants to expose the tin ceiling. The new tenants are also excited about the interior renovation. He added that they would also like as much light as possible. Mr. Hogestad said that he sensed that they were losing this period of architecture, which is unusual in Old Town, such as the granite kickplates and other features from the 1930s and 1940s. Ms. Ore said that it seems like Old Town is being taken back to a certain period and eradicating everything in between. Mr. Kaplan discussed the history Landmark Preservation Commis • December 9, 1998 Meeting Minutes Page 7 of the City Drug building, built in 1885, which he also owns. He added that he wants to unify the entire comer. Mr. Hogestad discussed Old Chicago's and the evolution of that storefront, which was once arcaded. Mr. Hogestad said that maybe they could re- introduce the columns and he felt that the proposals were not necessarily re-creating the historic storefront. He asked if they could create a different entrance for the Catacombs. Mr. Pouppirt discussed Larimer Square in Denver. Mr. Hogestad said that maybe they should accept that there are two periods represented in that building. He added that the Five and Dime store had more arcading in the storefront. Mr. Mechels asked if they stuck with the 1920s storefront, what would they do with the beam. He asked if a signage band would be appropriate. The Commission said that they should look at the picture of the Five and Dime. Ms. Milewski and Ms. Aguilera agreed that either time period would be appropriate. Mr. Hogestad added that the two styles in the building tell a story. Mr. Kaplan asked how they would deal with the arcaded portion of the building. Mr. Hogestad said that they could deal with it in a way that it becomes more compatible and arcading was more compatible with 1930s. Ms. Milewski said that they should look into taking the beam out and adding some structural columns. +va+.wuur �VIIMV, nure rann - a,omDnnlenTary Keview OT flans For Tne site Ms. McWilliams reported that the Rules would like to get a consensus on the site plan for the Rule Farm. Mr. Haworth, Architect, asked the LPC to look at the plans for the restaurant, which would set the theme for the rest of the development. He explained that the City was in the process of re -writing the storm drainage requirements, and it may or may not affect the project. Ms. McWilliams explained that on October 28, 1998 the LPC gave a conceptual review of the project. Their comments included keeping the house and barn in their original locations; to explore adaptive re -use of other structure; new construction and alternatives to older buildings should be done with sensitivity towards the older structures; a separate building for the restaurant rather than an addition to the house; and maintain connectivity between the house and the barn. The most recent drawings were being presented tonight. Ms. McWilliams added that, if possible, the LPC should also give their opinion as to which buildings should be preserved and which they felt could be demolished. She showed pictures of the various buildings and structures. Mr. Haworth said that he was able to create more connectivity between the house and barn by altering the traffic flow. He said that City Plan dictated parking in the back and pushing the buildings to the front. He added that the Design Review Subcommittee had suggested traffic flow around the barn, but it would not work with the traffic access. They also propose relocating the chicken coop next to the barn. Mr. Haworth presented building elevations. The LPC was concerned about the "light tower". Mr. Haworth explained the design as a dining room upstairs with a wine cellar downstairs. Another option also retained the tower, but designed more like a silo, with the bottom half stone, similar to the farm structures. He added that they might need three office buildings, not two. The one of ten thousand square feet he thought would be more appropriate next to Lemay, rather than adjacent to the residential use on the other side. Landmark Preservation Commission _ December 9, 1998 Meeting Minutes Page 8 Ms. Milewski commented that it was good they were able to save the barn in its original location. Mr. Tanner liked the concept of the small roadway and thought it was an inventive solution. Mr. Hogestad asked about the paving design. Mr. Haworth said that he hasn't done the detailing yet and he wants to tie the site together. Ms. Ore asked which structures had foundations, and it was explained that the playhouse had a log foundation. Mr. Hogestad thought they could also do something with the playhouse to adaptively reuse it. Mr. Hawthorn said that they could put it next to the house. He added that they have also decided not to add onto the house. Mr. Tanner asked if the silo idea was an important element. Mr. Hawthorn explained that he would like to create a visual sign out of an appealing feature from the building. Mr. Tanner said that it looked like a lighthouse. Ms. Ore added that the round window was very nautical, but the palladium window would be better. Mr. Hogestad said that he likes to see similar materials used, but not a replica of the house. He liked Option 2, which breaks the structure up into smaller pieces. Ms. Ore was bothered by the silo and said it looked incongruous on the site. Mr. Hawthorn explained that it functionally created a visual element and interior space for dining and a wine cellar. He would like to create a space with lots of windows. The LPC would like to see him re -configure it so it did not stand out so much. Mr. Pouppirt said that he likes the site plan and what they have done with it. Ms. Ore said that the first option had the sense of a shaker style house. Mr. Hogestad asked the Commission if they were comfortable with the buildings to be saved and demolished. Ms. McWilliams summarized the LPC's opinion that the house and barn should be saved in their original locations, the chicken coop and the playhouse should be moved, and the pole barn and garage could be demolished. Mr. Hogestad asked for citizen input. Mr. Frick stated that he liked the site plan, it had less intensity than expected and the architecture was interesting. He said not to mimic the gable roof too much and to really make the tower look like a silo. Mr. Tanner said that the silo bothers him and he would like to see more intimate space, like porches. Mr. Hogestad suggested that they tuck in more into the house and integrate it a little better. Ms. Tunner said that they were looking for something to add character to the restaurant. Ms. Milewski commented that it was a small area, but a great office park and very unique for Fort Collins. Ms. Ore agreed that leaving the historic structures made it interesting and unique. She asked if there was any chance to get more documentation on the outbuildings. She would like to have the relationships between the buildings surveyed for the benefit of other historians examining agricultural properties. Ms. McWilliams and Mr. Hawthorn discussed the next step. She said that Staff will review the Commission's comments regarding the historic buildings and would consider the demolition of the pole barn and garage. OTHER BUSINESS: State Tax Credit Reviewing Resolution for 1999 Ms. Tunner said that she needs to have a resolution from the Commission for the State Tax Credit; whether the Commission would like to do the design review for next year. Every year, the Commission has an option whether they are going to be the reviewing Landmark Preservation CommlS9 • December 9, 1998 Meeting Minutes Page 9 entity for the State Tax Credit or to let the review be done by the Colorado State Historical Society. The background on this is that the State Tax Credit started in 1991. For the first four years the LPC did not do the review but they did do it from 1995-1997. This year, 1998, they declined to do it. Ms. Tunner explained that one reason the review was sent down to the State was because the LPC was uncomfortable dealing with design review on interiors where even built in dishwashers are approvable for the credit. The other reason was because of a lack of staff time, since staff is still a half- time employee. Mr. Hogestad stated that he thought that it also caused a lot of ill will. Ms. Ore asked for clarification. Mr. Hogestad explained that the LPC asked for a lot of documentation, and necessarily so, and people thought that that was asking too much. Ms. Ore said agreed that the State should do the review. Ms. Tunner explained that what the motion needs to be is a recommendation to City Council that the LPC does or does not want to be the reviewing agent. Mr. Tanner moved that the LPC not be the review entity for the State Tax Credit in 1999. Ms. Ore seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. (6-0) Ms. Tunner said that there was a local government liaison hired by the Colorado State Historical Society, Dan Corson. Dan is handling the Certified Local Government responsibilities. He is working on the effort to continue the State Tax Credit Program, when it is sunsetted next year. He has been doing a review of all the cities and State Tax Credits they reviewed. Ms. Tunner handed out a draft list of the projects. She already found seven Fort Collins projects that were not listed. She said that Fort Collins had more tax credits than any other city in the state outside of Denver. This is just for the LPC's information. Ms. Tunner also produced a record of all the State Tax Credits reviewed by the LPC which was from 1995 through 1997. She said that the list was pretty impressive and that the last page was projects that have not yet been completed. Ms. Tunner thought that Fort Collins will be in the spotlight, when the Colorado Historical society asks the legislature in 1999 to continue the program. She explained that it was not a given that the program will be continued. During citizen input, Mr. Frick said "why not continue the program, it works." Ms. Tunner reported that the Nelson House, a local landmark since 1973, needs a new roof. The house was built in the 1880s and now has three layers of cedar shakes. The Parks Department would like to install a standing seam metal roof. They said that the cottonwood trees were damaging it. The Commission agreed that a wood roof replacement would be necessary for the landmark. Ms. Tunner suggested that they try to get a State Historic fund mini -grant to retain a wood roof. Mr. Frick stated that they should trim the cottonwoods. The meeting adjourned 8:50 p.m. Submitted by Nicole Sneider, Secretary