Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 01/27/1998LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting January 27, 1998 Council Liaison: Scott Mason Staff Liaison: Joe Frank Commission Chairperson: Jennifer Carpenter (225-0960) SUMMARY OF MEETING: The Commission discussed their previous selection of a recipient for the Outstanding Historic Renovation Award. The LPC recommended the addition of 238 East Mountain as a contributing structure to the Old Town Historic District. Staff presented the Local Landmark Rehabilitation Grant application review. The Commission discussed the ranking of the applications and possible funding allocation scenarios. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Jennifer Carpenter called the meeting to order at 5:40 p.m., at 281 North College Avenue. Commission members Per Hogestad, Bud Frick, Angela Milewski, Stephen Short and James Tanner were present. Rande Pouppirt arrived late. Joe Frank, Carol Tunner, Karen McWilliams and Timothy Wilder were present as staff. GUESTS: Angela Brayham, applicant, OneWest Art Center; Susan Fernando Gomez, applicant, 1501 West Mountain Avenue; Lyn Warrick, 500 Seneca #31 and Marilyn Warrick, applicant, 3420 West Mulberry; Carolyn L. Goodwin, applicant, 314 East Mulberry; Douglas Gennetten, 251 Linden Street; Bob Allen and Julie Morton, applicant, 632 Peterson; Ed Stoner, applicant, 238 East Mountain Avenue; Les Sunde, applicant, 214 — 222 Pine Street; Jim Bennett, applicant, 242-244 Pine Street; and Carl Patton, applicant, 515 Remington. AGENDA REVIEW: Ms. McWilliams added the discussion of the eligibility status of 238 East Mountain and amending the map for Historic Old Town. Ms. Carpenter then reviewed the schedule for the Local Landmark Rehabilitation Grant Application Review. She said that Commission members may ask questions of the applicants during the application review, but Staff has included detailed information, which should be useful. The Commission can discuss the projects and their pre -scoring. Mr. Short stated that he has a problem with funding storm windows and would like to discuss this issue further. Mr. Wilder suggested that they address storm windows under the overview of the grant program. He also added that this evening they would only discuss ranking and not decide on funding allocation. STAFF REPORTS: Ms. Tunner informed the Commission of the upcoming CPI convention. Ms. Carpenter extended an invitation to the legislative luncheon; the cost is thirty-five dollars. She added that the most endangered historic places in Colorado list will be announced. Landmark Preservation Commission January 27, 1998 Page 2 Ms. McWilliams explained that they would postpone for further discussion the presentation to Council of the Standards and Guidelines for Historic Properties. COMMISSION MEMBERS' REPORTS: None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The January 13,1998 LPC meeting minutes were accepted as submitted. Outstanding Historic Renovation Award — Discussion of Selected Nominee Ms. McWilliams presented a memo that discussed the approval at the last LPC meeting of an Outstanding Historic Renovation Award for the City for the fencing around Annie the Dog's Grave. She suggested that the LPC reconsider their selection because the enclosure is new construction, not restoration or renovation, and the design has no historic basis. The Commission discussed the intent of their award selection. Mr. Short explained that he saw the selection as an honor for the dog's gravesite and not the enclosure. Ms. McWilliams recommended that the LPC should nominate the City for the Friend of Preservation Award for their efforts in restoring the depot and the protection of Annie the Dog's gravesite. Ms. Carpenter added that it was not a renovation but a preservation effort and should be included in the overall depot preservation. Mr. Short said that maybe they should wait until the depot is renovated as the proposed transit center. Ms. Tunner added that a great deal of stabilization work has already been completed on the depot. Mr. Short moved to rescind the Commission's previous motion and to approve a new motion that a Friend of Preservation Award be given to recognize the City's great efforts in restoring and stabilizing the Depot and in protecting Annie's Grave as part of this project. Ms. Milewski seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. (Short, Milewski) (6-0) LOCAL LANDMARK REHABILITATION GRANT APPLICATION REVIEW: U10UUSSIVII VI eOO G451 IVIUUM4111 — UC1C1111111ULIV11 VI CII(JIUIIIIX Ms. McWilliams explained that the existing map of Historic Old Town does not consider 238 East Mountain as contributing to the district. The applicant, Ed Stoner would like the building to be evaluated as a contributing structure in the Historic Old Town District. Grant programs and other incentives would then be available for rehabilitation of the structure. Mr. Hogestad asked how the building has been changed. Ms. McWilliams explained that the garage doors have been replaced with plate glass windows. Ms. Carpenter asked if the original columns and brick exist on the building. Ms. Tunner stated that the brick work remains and polychrome bricks were used. it was built in the 1920s, post WWI and there are few buildings like it in Fort Collins. Ms. McWilliams added that the Local Landmark Rehabilitation Grant Program application is affected by the LPC's decision. Mr. Tanner moved to declare the building at 238 East Mountain Avenue as a Landmark Preservation Commission January 27, 1998 Page 3 contributing structure to the Old Town Historic District. Mr. Frick seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. (Tanner, Frick) (5-1) Mr. Short voted nay. OVERVIEW OF REHABILITATION GRANT REVIEW: Mr. Wilder discussed the reviewing and ranking of the applications. He explained that scoring for criteria #1 and #2 should have been completed. They will have one hour to re - score the applications if needed. Color photos and slides of each property will be shown. Mr. Frick withdrew from the discussion of the Rehabilitation Grant Applications because of a conflict of interest and left the meeting. Mr. Wilder initiated the discussion of funding storm windows for the program. He presented a history of this issue. Ms. Carpenter asked if storm windows alone were being funded or they were part of a larger project. Mr. Wilder explained that there is no policy stating that the LPC can not fund storm windows and in some applications it was a main portion of the grant. Currently storm windows are eligible for the grant and have been funded in the past, but the Commission may wish to create a policy for the future. Mr. Hogestad said that changing out aluminum windows for wood is making them more compatible. Ms. Tunner said that many applications are for the repair and not the replacement of windows and that new ones must be constructed of wood. Mr. Short discussed the impact storm windows may have on older buildings, that traditionally they did not have such windows. He explained that storm windows might worsen humidity and condensation problems. He would rather see the money go towards the repair of existing windows. Mr. Short continued to explain that there has been documented cases that storm windows tighten up buildings, which leads to a humidity problem. He would like to see the issue looked at in detail. Mr. Hogestad stated that storm windows could keep old windows from sweating and sashes from rotting. Mr. Short said that if they were too tight, condensation would collect on the inside. Mr. Hogestad said that he has no problem with funding stone windows. Ms. Milewski then pointed out that at this late time, applicants did not know that this would be an issue. Ms. Carpenter added that residential homes should be brought up to today's standards and they should be kept viable as well as comfortable. Mr. Wilder then led the Commission and citizens through the application review process explaining the ranking procedure to the public audience. OneWest Art Center — The Old Post Office The applicant is asking for $5,000 and is matching with $52,600.This application includes soffit replacement, woodwork, window casement, window false walls and masonry work and cleaning. Staff discussed the proposed false walls and whether they are eligible. Mr. Wilder explained it could be considered part of the structural work, so he asked the applicant to include them as part of the match. Mr. Short inquired about the cleaning technique that is proposed for the masonry. The application only states "gentle as Landmark Preservation Commission January 27, 1998 Page 4 possible". Ms. Brayham, applicant, said that Dick Hill, who is a consultant on the project would be able to explain the techniques to be used. Ms. Carpenter reminded the Commission that this proposal had been reviewed conceptually already. Ms. Brayham added that the contractor has experience working on historic buildings and that the State Historical Society has funded the project. Mr. Tanner explained that further discussion would occur under Design Review. Staff clarified that the screen around the roof edge was not included in the cost. 514 East Elizabeth Ms. Marshall, the applicant, is requesting $1,450 and is matching with $2,025. Mr. Tanner asked the applicant if she has chosen a door design. Mr. Short noted that two doors are proposed, with a screen door over the front door. Ms. Marshall has two choices for the front door, but has not made a decision yet. 251 Linden Street The applicant is requesting $5,000 and is matching with $60,000. The applicant had received a 1997 Rehabilitation Grant and is still working on that project. There were no questions concerning the 1998 grant application. 1501 West Mountain Avenue This property had come in for a 1996 Rehabilitation Grant under a different applicant. Ms. Gomez, owner is requesting $2,500 and matching with $2,900. She proposes trim and siding repair, patch repair on the stairs, as well as storm windows and chimney work. Mr. Hogestad asked if the work had been completed from the 1996 grant, which it has. Ms. Milewski inquired whether the garage is a designated structure and it is included. Mr. Tanner asked why support pads and footings are not included in the application. Ms. Gomez explained it is not included because it makes the project too expensive. She feels that there are other maintenance items which need to be taken care of first. Mr. Short questioned why it is that technical questions must be answered at a later time, when preservation practices are important criteria in allocating grant funds. Ms. Carpenter addressed this question by explaining the process of Design Review, which is required before the applicant may obtain approval to complete the work. She added that the Secretary of the Interior's Standards provide guidelines as to what are acceptable work items and techniques for historic properties. They also discussed the use of storm windows. Mr. Tanner explained that the application is just a proposal. Mr. Short said that he might have general technical questions, which need to be addressed in order to rank the project according to their proposed preservation practices. Ms. Carpenter said the Commission needed to assume that the applicant will complete the work to the level of Design Review. Mr. Frank added that if there is an item that they clearly do not like, they may include this factor in their ranking. Ms. Carpenter discussed the work proposed on the porch of 1501 West Mountain and asked if photo -documentation is available. She questioned whether the porch elements Landmark Preservation Commission January 27, 1998 Page 5 would be repaired or replaced. Ms. Gomez said that they will repair whatever is possible, but a large amount of the trim work is deteriorated. Their intent is to go back to the historic features, to repair the existing features and to repair rather than replace elements. 238 East Mountain Avenue Mr. Stoner, the applicant is requesting $4,874 and matching with $33,794 to replace the storefront. Additional information was faxed to Staff for this evening's discussion. Rande Pouppirt arrived 6:30 p.m. Ms. Carpenter asked if the storefront could be done from photo -documentation. Mr. Stoner said that he has not researched photo -documentation, but he does know that the building was originally a garage. He explained that this application really addresses energy conservation and he would like to change out the single pane glass to double pane. 2340 West Mulbernv The applicant is requesting $2,500 and matching with $4,952. This project has already been reviewed for design by the LPC. It includes the installation of wood shingles over existing wood shingles and the addition of half -round gutters. Staff said the addition was part of the designated property. 314 East Mulberry The applicant is requesting $690 and matching with $890. The interior work proposed is not eligible for matching or grant funds. Exterior work includes re -pointing the foundation, brick repair and chimney repair. Ms. Goodwin, the applicant, has received a couple of grants in the past. Ms. Carpenter said that would not affect their decision tonight. Mr. Frank added that the criteria of preservation necessity may be affected due to a lower level of need for proposed work on the house. 632 Peterson Street The applicant is requesting $2,500 and matching with $6,860. Porch work is proposed in the application. The Commission asked whether the skirting would be replaced or repaired. Mr. Allen, the applicant, reported that the contractor would have to replace all of the decking because of rot. He said, they can re-examine it again. In addition, there is no support under the porch. 216 — 222 Pine Street The applicant is requesting $2,500 and matching with $4,258. The LPC has revised the scope of work for re -roofing, under a 1997 Rehabilitation Grant. Now the applicant is requesting funds to re -roof the second half. The work has not been completed yet, but he has until March or April. 242 — 244 Pine Street The applicant is requesting $1,563 and matching with $1,989. The applicant proposes Landmark Preservation Commission January 27, 1998 Page 6 stuccowork, paint and a new roof membrane. The replacement of the awnings will need to be discussed in order to determine whether awnings are eligible. Historic photos show no evidence of awnings in the past. Mr. Bennett, applicant, said that the awnings have already been completed and that they were replaced with the exact same kind. Mr. Frank said that grant money can not be used for awnings and could not be applied retroactively. Ms. Carpenter asked whether they could be used as a match. Then she asked whether the stucco is historic. Mr. Bennett said that he has not seen photos of the backside of the building. The matching funds were reduced because the awnings have already been installed. 515 Remington The applicant is requesting $2,375 and is matching with $2,375. The applicant proposed chimney repair, re -pointing and brick replacement. This proposal has already come through conceptual review. 210 — 218 Walnut Street The applicant is requesting $5,000 and is matching with $65,794. Elevations and photos are provided and the proposal is the same as what had gone through conceptual review. Mr. Wilder stated that a 1996 Rehabilitation Grant extension is in place until April 30, 1998. The LPC discussed how this grant would replace the 1996 grant. Mr. Hogestad explained that a lot of the same work is being proposed, but it has been revised and the proposal is more comprehensive. The LPC discussed how they should make a conditional approval or rescind the 1996 grant. Ms. Carpenter explained that the old grant proposal could not be completed because it is based on some of the same work as is being applied for now. Ms. Milewski pointed out that the application lists a thousand dollars of the 1996 grant. Mr. Frank said that they will clarify the situation. Mr. Tanner asked if the applicant plans to reconstruct the historic fagade on 210, once the Miami brick is removed. He noted there is no evidence of what the historic fagade looked like. Ms. Tunner said that they will use a contemporary treatment. Mr. Hogestad added that there is historic structural evidence, which will be used as a guideline. 311 Whedbee The applicant is requesting $2,500 and is matching with $4,340. This rehabilitation work has already been reviewed by the LPC. 546 Willow (The Lindell Mill) The applicant is requesting $1,246 and is matching with $1,246. Ranchway Inc., the applicant would like to replace three upper story aluminum windows with Marvin double - hung, custom-built multi -light windows. Ms. Carpenter asked if they will match the existing windows. Ms. Tunner said yes. Mr. Wilder reviewed the Staff tallies for criteria #3 significance of the resource and #4 amount of leverage funds: Landmark Preservation Commission January 27, 1998 Page 7 OneWest Art Center— The Old Post Office #3 score 10: because it is a very unique #4 score 5 514 East Elizabeth #3 score 2: because of low integrity. It is a common style and has outdoor carpeting and skylights visible from the front. #4 score 1 251 Linden Street #3 score 8: because it has high integrity and not many changed features. #4 score 5 1501 West Mountain Avenue #3 score 8: The property is individually designated on the National Register. It has high integrity. #4 score 1 238 East Mountain Avenue #3 score 3: because it is a contributing building in a district and has several alterations. It has moderate integrity and is not a unique style. #4 score 5 2340 West Mulberry #3 score 8: Some alterations have been made, but the property is associated with an important historic figure and is individually designated on the National Register. #4 score 2 314 East Mulberry #3 score 3: major alterations, but some historical and architectural significance #4 score 1 632 Peterson Street #3 score 6: It has high integrity and portrays a Dutch Colonial revival style. The dormer was questioned, but was definitely added early. #4 score 4 216 — 222 Pine Street #3 score 3: Alterations have been made. The buildings contribute to a historic district. #4 score 2 242 — 244 Pine Street #3 score 7: It has high integrity. #4 score 0 Landmark Preservation Commission January 27, 1998 Page 8 515 Remington #3 score 8: It has high integrity and is architecturally and historically important. #4 score 0 210 — 218 Walnut Street #3 score 4: Alterations has been made, but the original Silver Grill has some integrity. #4 score 5 311 Whedbee #3 score 5: It has high integrity and has moderately significant architecture. #4 score 2 546 Willow (The Lindell Mill) #3 score 8: It is unique with moderate integrity. Some roof alterations have been made, but it is very significant historically. #4 score 0 Ms. Carpenter stated that this may be the one and only structure still working, which is associated with the agriculture of this area. She would like to see it scored with a 9, but the LPC said that 8 is appropriate. BREAK — Staff Tally LPC Scores PRELIMINARY RANKINGS PRESENTED AND PUBLIC INPUT: Staff returned with the rank of the applications. Ms. Carpenter said that they will review the ranking procedure and rank of each application and give an opportunity for public input. 1. 201 S. College (182) 2. 251 Linden (173) 3. 632 Peterson (143) 4. 210 — 218 Walnut (135) 5. 2340 W. Mulberry (134) 6. 1501 W. Mountain (133) 7. 515 Remington (132) S. 311 Whedbee (125) 8. * 546 Willow (125) 10. 216 — 222 Pine (116) 11. 314 E. Mulberry (108) 12. 242 — 244 Pine (103) 13. 514 E. Elizabeth (80) 14. 238 E. Mountain (66) Landmark Preservation Commission January 27, 1998 Page 9 (' two applications receive a tie rank) Mr. Wilder reviewed the four criteria used to rank each application. #1, Resource, #2 Demonstration of Preservation Necessity or Threat, #3 Demonstration of Resource Significance, and #4 The amount of leverage funds. PUBLIC INPUT: Ms. Carpenter asked the audience if there was any public input. There was none. LPC DISCUSSION OF PRELIMINARY RANKING AND MOTIONNOTE ON FINAL RANKING: The Commission discussed the ranking of the applications. Mr. Tanner said that he was not surprised with applications #1 and #2, but #3 through #7 are so close and they could only fully fund projects up to #5 or #6. Mr. Tanner suggested that they may want to revisit the ranking. Mr. Pouppirt asked if they would like to fund more projects with less money or less projects with more money. Ms. Carpenter asked if there is a list of applicants who are willing to get partial funding. Staff responded with two who were not willing: 515 Remington, who is willing to negotiate on partial funding, and 216-222 Pine. Mr. Short moved to accept the preliminary ranking as submitted. Mr. Hogestad seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. (Short, Hogestad) (6-0) PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION OF GRANT ALLOCATIONS: Staff listed how far down they could fully fund projects. The LPC discussed the question of partial funding. Last year applicants were granted 50% of what they requested. At the second meeting in February the Commission will vote on recommendations for the allocation of funds. Ms. Carpenter said that in the past they have fully funded projects and that they have the opportunity to grant more money or more projects. Mr. Frank suggested that they look at each application and consider which elements they would want to fund. The Commission discussed how 50% funding across the board is more arbitrary and they may run into problems identifying the separate elements. Mr. Hogestad said it is an issue of the applicants' priorities and needs. Mr. Tanner suggested that they eliminate trying to give everyone something. Mr. Hogestad asked how far down the list 50% funding would go, which was #14. Mr. Short said that #7, 515 Remington needs a lot of work and he would like to be able to help them out. Mr. Tanner suggested and the Commission then discussed taking $1,000 dollars off each commercial project and $500 off each residential in order to fund down to project #7. Mr. Frank encouraged the Commission to keep brainstorming. Mr. Tanner pointed out that funding to #7 reaches a clear demarcation in the ranking, when points start to more severely drop off. Mr. Pouppirt felt that #1, #2 and #3 are clearly superior and he thinks they should receive all they asked for. Mr. Short likes Mr. Tanner's suggestion to remove $1,000 from Commercial and $500 from residential. Landmark Preservation Commission January 27, 1998 Page 10 Mr. Hogestad then said with or without a grant everyone assumes that commercial projects will proceed and questioned whether the ranking procedure is working. Mr. Wilder explained that the type of project sometimes determines where the application falls in the ranking. Ms. Carpenter added that this system rewards larger projects. Mr. Tanner said that they should reward more leverage funding. Ms. Milewski agreed that matching funds need to relate to the historic rehabilitation of the structure in order to be considered. Ms. Carpenter stated that a project like #10 may not be completed without funding. Mr. Tanner stated that now was not the time to be discussing their procedures. Mr. Hogestad does not want to see commercial projects penalized by taking a greater amount of money away. Mr. Tanner said that cutting back by twenty percent is equal to taking $1,000 from commercial and $500 from residential projects. Mr. Short noted that how the funds are used is important and smaller projects may not be as significant to the community. Ms. Carpenter pointed out that homeowners may not have the same funds available as businesses. Mr. Frank then explained that one goal of the program is to encourage re -investment in property and that is why leverage funds are an important criteria. Mr. Tanner agreed that the more willing people are to invest in historic properties the better. Mr. Wilder said the weight of leveraging is reduced compared to the other criteria. The LPC went on to discuss other issues, associated with the allocation of funding. Mr. Wilder said that some extra funds may be available from the 1996 program, due to projects coming in under budget and the possibility of The Silver Grill 1996 grant award being rescinded. Mr. Short asked to see a break down of various scenarios at the next meeting. Mr. Pouppirt and Mr. Tanner agreed that they would like to see projects funded through the tied #8s. Mr. Pouppirt would also like to see the first couple of projects fully funded. Mr. Short did not agree. Mr. Hogestad said that he would like to see projects receive more funding than last year. Mr. Short pointed out that #10 is the kind of building that provides space in downtown, which is honorable. Mr. Frank stated that is not part of the criteria, but demonstrates good sensitivity for different clients and uses downtown. Staff will work out several scenarios for the next meeting. Funding will be worked out through number #7 or #9 (8') and they will see how far funding will go with a twenty percent cut for commercial and residential projects. They will also contact the applicant at 515 Remington to evaluate partial funding for this project. Mr. Wilder will also inform applicants of the final rankings. Mr. Tanner requested that the applicants be informed that under no situation will the funding go past project #9. Ms. Carpenter was uncomfortable with revealing that information without having a motion or a vote taken. She asked that the applicants get a copy of the final ranking and know where their project stands. The meeting adjourned 8:30 p.m. Submitted by Nicole Sneider, Secretary.