Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 10/28/1997LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting October 28, 1997 Council Liaison: Scott Mason Staff Liaison: Joe Frank Commission Chairperson: Jennifer Carpenter (225-0690) SUMMARY OF MEETING: Proposed interior and exterior work was approved for the Colorado Income Tax Credit, Part 1 for the R. G. Maxwell House, at 2340 West Mulberry. Repainting the storefront of 220 Linden Street was tabled until the applicant provides a more comprehensive plan for painting the building. The LPC approved interior and exterior rehabilitation work for the Colorado Income Tax Credit, Part 1 at the W. N. Culbertson House, 909 — 909 1/s Whedbee. The LPC approved re -roofing 214 — 216 Pine Street for the Local Landmark Rehabilitation Grant. The Gladys and Willard Eddy House, at 509 Remington, was approved for re -roofing. The LPC granted a waiver of the Demolition Delay, Section 14:72, according to hardships incurred as outlined in the terms of Section 14:53, for 1110 Lincoln Avenue, the Webster Farmhouse. Empire Carpentry was added to the list of pre -qualified professionals under the Design Assistance Program. The LPC Work Plan for 1998 was approved. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: The meeting was called to order 5:35 p.m., at 281 North College Avenue. Commission members Jennifer Carpenter, Bud Frick, Angela Milewski, Stephen Short and James Tanner were present. Diana Ross arrived late. Per Hogestad was absent. Carol Tunner, Karen McWilliams, Joe Frank, and Tim Wilder represented Staff. GUESTS: Amanda Bennett, Colorado State University student; Jack Leavitt, Aegis Goldsmiths Ltd. and Neil and Helen Beaty, tenants, 220 Linden Street; Ron Proctor, Crystal Park Jeweler, tenant, 224 Linden Street; Eileen Gaebler, owner, 220 — 224 Linden Street; Cindy Radoseuch, citizen; Bob Kopitzke, owner, 909 Whedbee; Les Sunde, owner, 214 — 216 Pine Street and T. A. Tisthammer, Roofer, Wattle and Daub Contractors; Gladys Eddy, owner, 509 Remington; Gregg W. Belcher, owner, 107 N. Meldrum; Steve Slezak, Downtown Development Authority; Marilyn Warrick, owner, 2340 West Mulberry. AGENDA REVIEW: Ms. Tunner planned to discuss the annual LPC holiday party under Other Business. Mr. Wilder planned to discuss the time line for the upcoming Rehabilitation Grant Program. STAFF REPORTS: Ms. McWilliams reported that slides of properties would be presented at the next meeting for the East Side/West Side Neighborhood Survey project. She added that they are actively pursuing the proposed amended Historic Old Town district designation. The issue will be discussed at the next Downtown Development Authority Landmark Preservation Commission October 28, 1997 Page 2 meeting. COMMISSION MEMBERS' REPORTS: None. CURRENT DESIGN REVIEW: Ms. Warrick explained that she is seeking approval for mostly exterior rehabilitation work. This proposal was last treated as a conceptual review. The LPC Design Review Sub - Committee visited the site and discussed the proposed work with the applicant. The Design Assistance Program was utilized to design the well house flat roof. Aller-Lingle Architects prepared the design. Keystone Masonry will be contracted to repoint the brick and the stone wall. The brick on the house will also be cleaned. It has been determined that half round gutters are necessary because of the presence of decorative molding where the gutters will have to be attached. The front step will be replaced with redwood and the porch skirt will be cut off at the bottom edge, so it is even and not in contact with the soil. Ms. Tunner suggested adding a layer of gravel over weed fabric to help with proper drainage. Mr. Frick added that the rocks should be put down three to four inches thick. Ms. Warrick explained that she has not been successful in contacting a roofing company to do the work. She plans to repair the existing wood roof shingles, because composite - roofing material will not be approved for the State Tax Credit program. A new layer of wood shingles over the existing roof would be another option. Ms. Tunner explained that the LPC could approve both patch repair or another layer of wood roofing material. Mr. Short questioned the technique being used for the exterior masonry repair. The brick is to be ground down so it is even and then repointed, because the brick facing has undergone some damage. Mr. Frick reported what he had seen when he visited the site. He said that there is evidence that a plaster wall was applied over the brick. Ms. Warrick explained that the slope of the well house roof is flat and a modified roofing system will be installed which will act as a water and ice barrier. Mr. Frick said that they could cut the sleepers of the well house on an angle to create a very slight pitch. Ms. Tunner explained that Aller-Lingle determined that a modified roofing system does not require a pitch and the applicant would like to preserve the appearance of the flat well house roof. Mr. Tanner moved to approve the Maxwell House for interior/exterior rehabilitation as proposed with the addendum that the previously approved plan for the roof can include putting a second layer of wood as well as repairing the existing shingles. Mr. Short seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. (5-0) Diana Ross arrived 5:55 p.m. 220 Linden Street the Antler's Hotel Repainting of Storefront (Aegis Goldsmiths Ltd., Jack Leavitt) Landmark Preservation Commission October 28, 1997 Page 3 Mr. Leavitt explained that his business, Aegis Goldsmith Ltd., has moved into the right side of the three storefront building. The building is currently painted in three shades of green. He presented a color elevation and paint swatches of the proposed paint colors. Ms. Tunner showed older photos of the storefront from 1989 and 1992 and added that the building needs to be repainted. She explained that the applicant is only proposing to paint his storefront. Mr. Leavitt explained that the owner agreed that the other tenants would have to coordinate their storefronts. Ms. Carpenter asked if the building cornice and window frames would be different from the storefront. Ms. Tunner added that the applicant also plans to remove the existing awning. Mr. Leavitt said that the green color of the storefront would only be a shade darker than the top cornice. The LPC agreed that it is difficult to determine the compatibility of the existing and proposed greens. Mr. Short asked the applicant if he had contacted the other tenants. Mr. Leavitt said that he had not been able to do that. Mr. Frick explained that according to guideline #12, a color scheme should be developed for the entire building. He does not have a problem with the proposed color scheme, but by painting one storefront, an odd element is created. Mr. Proctor, owner, Crystal Park occupies the left most storefront in the building, at 224 Linden Street. Under citizen comment, he said that he is in the process of designing their storefront and has never been contacted by Mr. Leavitt. He said that the other tenant in the center, might also have concerns. He had concerns, and explained that it is important for the tenants to work together in designing their storefronts. Joe Frank arrived 6:10 p.m. Ms. Gaebler, owner of the building said that she had no intention on painting the facade of the building in three different color schemes, but she also added that she does not intend to repaint the entire building. Mr. Leavitt explained that the storefront is dilapidated and unacceptable and he needs to paint it immediately. He prefers to change the colors. The tenants and the owner stepped out of the meeting to discuss this issue. When the tenants and owner returned, Ms. Gaebler explained that she is seeking approval for two base colors for the body and trim of the three retail storefronts only. She asked if the doors could be painted individually in different colors. Mr. Frick explained that the building is seen as one unit and they can not tell how the proposed colors will match the existing colors on the building. He explained that they need a more complete submittal. Ms. Carpenter explained, that according to the guidelines, the building should be complete and compatible in its paint scheme. Mr. Frick explained that they only have one storefront elevation out of three to review. It needs to be resubmitted as a whole building. Ms. Gaebler added that she would like to remove the existing dilapidated awnings, because the wind tends to catch them. Ms. Tunner said that she could review that administratively. The LPC agreed that if the doors coordinated, they could be painted in different colors. Mr. Short moved to table the consideration of 220 Linden Street until the next meeting, for further information. Mr. Frick seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. (6-0) Landmark Preservation Commission October 28, 1997 Page 4 909 — 909'/2 Whedbee. W. N. Culbertson House — Interior/Exterior Rehabilitation — Part 1 Final Review for State Tax Credit (Robert Ko in tzke) Ms. Tunner reported that the July 1997 flood caused extensive damage in the basement of 909'/2 Whedbee. On the exterior, half -round gutter is proposed to be installed on the west side of the building. The application had been tabled previously for more information on the cabinetry, windows, floor finishes, carpet , doors and an egress window for the basement bedroom. Materials and specifications have since been submitted. Ms. Tunner added that a five panel door would be installed to match the doors upstairs. Mr. Tanner moved to approve Part 1, final review for State Tax Credit for the W. N. Culbertson House as presented. The motion was seconded by Ms. Ross, which passed unanimously. (6-0) 214 — 222 Pine Street — Final Design Review for Re -roofing for a 1997 Awarded Local Landmark Rehabilitation Grant (Les Sunde) Mr. Wilder explained that the applicant is seeking approval for a change in the proposed work for re -roofing, which was awarded a 1997 Local Landmark Rehabilitation Grant. He said that the applicant did not understand that if he were awarded partial funding, he would still have to complete the entire project. Mr. Sunde explained that the roof is in bad shape. The estimated cost to re -roof the three buildings is $13,000 and he was anticipating that he would be awarded up to $5,000 for the work. When he received half that amount he planned to complete half the work this year and the rest the following year. He said that all of the mechanical apparatus is located on 214 Pine Street, along with skylights as well. This makes it more expensive to re -roof. He said that he could finish 214 and part of the 216 roof. The Commission and Mr. Sunde agreed that the job would cost more if it were completed in phases over time. Ms. Carpenter said that the LPC needs to know how far the money will go and exactly how much re -roofing will be completed. Mr. Tanner stressed that they need to address the ambiguity of partial funding and what the grantee agrees to complete. Because of this ambiguity the Commission needs to be flexible in this case. Mr. Tanner moved to approve a modification of the grant for 214-216 Pine Street, to allow re -roofing of part, rather than the whole project, with the provision as to how much of the buildings would be re -roofed to be submitted to staff for Administrative Review. And, with the second provision that no less than 40% of the total roof area is to be re -roofed. Mr. Short seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. (6-0) The discussion continued to address just how much of the roof should be re -roofed for the funding. Mr. Short moved to reconsider the previous motion. Mr. Frick seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. (6-0) Mr. Short questioned what percentage the LPC felt comfortable with. Ms. Milewski stated Landmark Presentation Commission October 28, 1997 Page 5 that they could not set an arbitrary percent without knowing about the condition of the roof. Mr. Sunde explained that his contractor would be arriving from Denver shortly and would have more information. Ms. Milewski moved to table this discussion until later in the meeting. Ms. Ross seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. (6-0) 214 — 222 Pine Street — Final Design Review for Re -roofing Continued Mr. Tisthammer, roofer for the project, reported that about 40 to 45% of the total roof project would be able to be completed with the available funds. The work would include gutters and detail work for the entire project. Over the long term all of the re -roofing will be completed. Mr. Tanner moved for a modification of the Local Rehabilitation Grant for 214-216 Pine Street to allow for the re -roofing of part rather than the whole roof, with the provision that no less than 40% of the total roof area be re -roofed. Mr. Short seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. (6-0) Mr. Frick moved to approve the design review for 214-216 Pine Street for re -roofing according to the modified Local Landmark Rehabilitation Grant. Mr. Short seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. (6-0) 509 Remington the Gladys and Willard Eddy House Re roofing (Gladys Eddy) Ms. Tunner explained that the house is currently in the process of being designated. Samples of the Heritage Series Laminated Asphalt Shingles were provided. Green asphalt shingles currently exist on the roof. The color of the new shingles will be Weathered Wood. Ms. Eddy explained that the roof is twenty years old. The old asphalt layers will be torn off as well as the underlying wood shingles. Ms. Ross moved to approve the re -roofing at 509 Remington. Mr. Frick seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. (6-0) DISCUSSION ITEMS: Waiver of Demolition Review —1110 Lincoln Avenue, Webster House Relocation Ms. McWilliams explained that Mr. Greg Belcher has submitted a request for a waiver of the demolition review process, Article 4 Chapter 14 (14:72b subsections 1-6), which pertains to demolition review. Chapter 14, Section 53, page 945 addresses the conditions according to which a waiver may be granted. Mr. Belcher stated that the purpose of a demolition review is to give public notice and that notice has been given because of the planned development at the site by Diamond Shamrock. He explained that it is almost a moot point because, when the gas station is built, the house will be destroyed. He explained that they have a good window of time to have qualified movers relocate the Landmark Preservation Commission October 28, 1997 Page 8 house. Mr. Belcher continued to explain that he has been trying to find good house movers for a year. Ms. Carpenter questioned whether Diamond Shamrock has to go through the demolition delay process when they plan to redevelop the site. Mr. Belcher is seeking a waiver for experiencing a substantial hardship. Mr. Frank questioned what is the hardship which requires that they grant a waiver. Mr. Belcher responded that it is very difficult to get a mover and he has a window of opportunity with a mover now. Ms. Carpenter explained that they need to be careful to protect the demolition delay process. Ms. Carpenter stated that when redevelopment is occurring on the site, first the LPC would look for someone who wanted to relocate the historic structure. That relocation of the structure is already planned. Mr. Frank explained that during the development review process, the demolition delay would have been triggered at the time if the structure were considered to be eligible. But, at that time, the structure was ineligible. Mr. Short asked what happens after the structure is moved. The LPC does not have jurisdiction over what happens after the move. Mr. Frank explained that one purpose of delaying demolition is to avoid leaving a vacant lot before there is a redevelopment plan for the site. Mr. Tanner questioned what is the substantial hardship in this case. Mr. Belcher said that he intends on using the building as part of an existing commercial use of a Bed and Breakfast. Ms. Carpenter stated that every business and person have opportunity costs. Mr. Belcher explained that he might miss his opportunity because it has already taken him a year to find a qualified mover. If he cannot move the structure right away he would have to start the process all over again. He added that the alternative is that the structure be bulldozed. Public notice has been posted within five hundred feet of the site. People have been informed that a gas station will be there without the Webster Farmhouse. Ms. Carpenter stated that public notice process would be different under demolition review. Mr. Short said that a separate process should not be confused with the demolition delay process and they need to defend the process. Mr. Belcher stated that he is afraid that he may not be able to find another qualified mover. Ms. Tunner stated that through the development review process, a sign had been placed out at the site for a long time and she has not received any new phone calls. Mr. Belcher currently owns the farmhouse. Mr. Slezak commented as a concerned citizen, that a substantial hardship has been created by not providing adequate timing for the applicant. He questioned if Diamond Shamrock would have to go through the process, because in order to build, they would have to move the structure or tear it down. Mr. Belcher explained that he has a history of being involved with historic preservation, commercially he needs to fill his property, and he immediately has someone to move it. He feels that his request does not go against the spirit and purpose of the code chapter. Ms. McWilliams said that normally they would be looking for someone like Mr. Belcher, who is interested in moving and preserving an historic structure which may be threatened with demolition. Ms. Milewski stated that a public hearing is conducted in order to inform people of a potential demolition and reach interested parties. Therefore, the demolition delay process allows this to happen and she agrees with the spirit of the ordinance. Mr. Frick agreed as well, and reminded the Landmark Preservation Commission October 28, 1997 Page 7 Commission that Mr. Belcher does own the building. Mr. Frick moved to approve the waiver of the Demolition Delay, Section 14:72b Sub- section(s)1-6, which pertains to Demolition Review. Mr. Short seconded the motion. Mr. Tanner added the friendly amendment, approval is granted under the terms of Section 14:53. Mr. Short accepted Mr. Tanner's friendly amendment. The motion passed unanimously. (6-0) Mr. Frank discussed whether the Planning and Zoning Board review should be incorporated in the Demolition Delay ordinance. The Commission agreed that it is against the spirit of the ordinance and they should be maintained as separate processes and different constituents are involved. Mr. Short questioned what triggers the demolition delay process when a property is not already determined to be eligible. Ms. Carpenter explained that if a structure is older than fifty years, then Building Inspection should initiate the process. From there, the issue is reviewed in order to help determine if the structure should be considered eligible or not. If the property were considered eligible, it would then go to the full LPC. The Commission would like to discuss demolition review at a further date. Addition of Empire Carpentry to the Design Assistance Program Pre Qualified Professionals List Ms. Tunner informed the Commission that Kevin Murray, owner of Empire Carpentry, has viewed the training video. He has also presented work which they have completed on historic structures in the past. Now he is requesting that he be placed on the DAP pre - qualified professionals list. Mr.. Tanner moved to add Empire Carpentry to the Design Assistance Program consultant list. Ms. Ross seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. (6-0) LPC Work Plan for 1998 Mr. Frick commented that the expansion of the Historic Old Town District boundaries should be completed relatively soon, so may not be included in the 1998 Work Program. The revision of Chapter 14 of the City Code should be changed to read revision of parts of Chapter 14. It was also stated that the City is an applicant for the State Historical Society funds for the Trimble and Barkley Block Facade Restoration. The Commission also discussed the importance of creating a database of historic properties and useful information which can then be linked to its location on a digital map, using a Geographic Information System. Mr. Frick moved to approve the LPC Work Plan for 1998 with the addition of researching other sources for a grant for the historic property database. Ms. Landmark Preservation Commission October 28, 1997 Page 8 Milewski seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. (6-0) OTHER BUSINESS: Ms. Tunner announced that November 11 is Veteran's Day and asked the Commission if they would like to reschedule the LPC meeting planned for that evening. The Commission decided to reschedule the meeting for November 10, Monday night, 5:30 p.m., so not to inconvenience applicants which may be seeking speedy approval for planned projects. Mr. Wilder presented the schedule time line for the Local Landmark Rehabilitation Grant Program. The applications are due November 3, 1997. On November 25, staff will give an overview of the proposed projects and show slides. The LPC will also be prepared for the ranking process. During the second meeting in January, the Commission will break down into small groups to rank the projects. The final decisions will be made sometime in February, which are will be announced by March 1, 1998. The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Submitted by Nicole Sneider, Secretary.