Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 06/25/1996LANDMARK PRESERVATION Regular Meeting June 25,1996 Council Liaison: Gina Jannett Staff Liaison: Joe Frank Commission Chairperson: Jennifer Carpenter SUMMARY OF MEETING: The LPC heard public programs. The LPC then discussed issues and been Manned and a sub -committee created to CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Jennifer ( to order at 5:34 p.m., 281 North College Avenue. Commission members Jennifer Carpenter, F Kullman, and James Tanner were present. Tere Carol Tunner, Karen McWilliams, and Joe-fitir ......... .. Planner also attended the meeting. i, called the meeting 'etary called the roll. er Hogestad, Jean 1 Frick were absent. Leanne Lawrie, City GUESTS: Diana Ross, newly appointed LPC member, observed the meeting. Public input was offered from the following citiz s: Jeff Bruges, ...... .... 725Wathews Street; Mary Arnett, 622 Remington; Nancy Eason, 1019 R:.. . eming n Street-�)Rod Vaughn, 451 ECR 56; Karla Oceanak; 425 Elizabeth; Jeff06njamin;::,6.24 Remin % gton; Gene Morley, 301 18 th Street, Windsor; Cindy North 6:l1:::: My Standle _0�College enue and Michael Early, 315 East AGENDA STAFF REPORTS1'.W;...T:unner announced that Ms. Ross was the new appointee to the LPC. OF MINUTE&'The April 9,1996 minutes were accepted as submitted. COMMISSION MEMBERS' REPORTS: Ms. Carpenter discussed the goal in creating an opportunity for public input. There has been a lot more interest in the Old Town area and the Visual I I Preference Survey done by Tony Nelessen has confirmed that Old Town and thei:raver '.. rfldor are valued by the citizens of Fort Collins. The Historic Resource Preservation Program was designed to educate the people about the historic places in the city, to explain the federal and state incentives, and to develop local ones. This evening, the Commission wanted to focus on evaluating their progress and developing new ways to provide better service. Ms. Carpenter said that they were looking for feedback and streamlining the increased work load for staff. Landmark Preservation Comm6on Regular Meeting June 25,1996 Page 2 Citizen Participation: The following people provided commentary: Mary Arnett, owner of 622 Remington, received a to do a $30,000 renovation. She explained that if it wasn a local landmark, probably would not exist today. Shea the past ten years. The only way she was informed of F up the letter at the property. She recommended sending address. Ms. Arnett added that the houses to tlae ► deteriorating to a severe degree and she feels that shel concerned that her property value would not go up`ed because of the condition of those houses. The Corn facilitating communication between neighbors anc maintenance.. ...... . ` Jeff Bridges, owner of 725 Mathews, comp the staff and the Commission, was committed to tt He provided an overhead map to show a perspf Side neighborhood. Eighty percent` of the,.,Lau shown. Individual Local Landmarks werw,indi properties, Mr. Bridges developed away of designation.:. The structures-in...d may meet two ► called qualifi The propert1.ies, illustrated In bluff and did nothaue anv major alterations. The brooE :ommuni, .:Blockrant in 1981 ty for the,help sha got, the house, p;been rehtut0,the house out for s meeting Iva men she picked little recourse 'She was maintaining the property, ..should work on ways of 3raging better property of athat he was a strong supporter of cause, and a'leader in the community. 1i of the northern section of the East 4 Sctiool' National Historic District was 3tediby green on the map. For other evaluating their potential for historic three criteria for designation and were had potential for landmark designation ties in black have had major alterations or were not old enough to be cons►dered for designation. The white areas meant that he does not have enough information on.the property to make a determination. He has over three hundred properties on a computer database that have the potential for local landmark designation District designation will also increase the workload immensely. Mr. Bridges stressed that The LPOneeds to develop processes to stimulate designations and streamline design revlew He also commented that by designating, there are ways to manage and maintain en historic building, but not many processes to manage the damage being done by the impact of surrounding neighbors. He explained that historic properties are in more dangor`from the surrounding environment than by themselves. Local landmarks will be. lost because a building's use is no longer viable, the collapse of the ne ghborht od, and property values not increasing with investments in the property. Mr. Bridges also designed a flow chart of the historic preservation program procedures. It illustrated where duplications occurred on application forms. He suggested categorizing the same information, making certain decisions early for items which are common on many of the program applications, (for instance is the project a restoration or a rehabilitation), and focusing on key issues to help move through the programs more efficiently. Nancy Eason, 1019 Remington had some questions about the district designation Landmark Preservation C• ission • Regular Meeting June 25, 1996 Page 3 process included with the Standards and Guidelines for Historic Properties. She wanted to know if there would be a vote included in the process and stated that she would like to see a vote included in that process. A vote would create an opportunity to have a say about the neighborhood and to express approval or disapproval of the designation. Ms. Eason was also concerned over what process homeowners would need to go through when they wanted to make changes to a property in an,historic distract , Scott Calhoun, 825 Peterson, presented a if he was to build an addition to his building if it was not wish to create scale drawings or hire an arc helped by the city by designating his property? contributing a visually pleasing structure, accorc beautify the city places the burden on him. He wa support from the city. Ron Vaughn, owner of the Tri outside city limits and was moved from He encouraged the LPC to work with properties. He was in support of bury, County building code was difficult'1 structure, it was treated as a new str plaster from the inside to add new I developed for historic structures to I historic Of he felt need to be VPSTm, and his efforts to m how he was going to get ined that`his house was now to a.:County road to the north. ish; i partnership to designate lsd explained that the Larimer when he moved his historic They had to tear out lath and like to see better procedures Incorporated in the County building code. He V revolved in the federal highway plans and `participate in the planning process. He also which new buildings make when built next to an util the Karla Oceanak wanted to "thank the LPC and staff for their time and support in rebuilding the porch on her home at 425 East Elizabeth. She felt that the process for her project"was straightforwartl but she did find some duplications between forms. She suggested that there should be a more uniform process for the State Tax Credit program, the Rehabilitation Grant program, and Local Landmark Designation especially because People tend to utilize them together. She also compared the historic structures and preservation processes which exist in Fort Collins to that of the East Coast. She felt that back East, there were a lot stricter guidelines and standards for historic structures. She stressed that what we have should be preserved because there is not as much. It is an important issue for the City and the procedures should be friendly and made easier for the applicant. Ms. Oceanak said that there are not many owner occupied properties in her neighborhood. She feels that homeowners and perspective home buyers do not see property protection around them and are skeptical about purchasing a home in her neighborhood. She emphasized that given the current momentum of preservation efforts, especially on the east side of town, the LPC should pay more attention to the macro level of historic preservation through neighborhood and district designation. Landmark Preservation Commisdron Regular Meeting June 25, 1996 Page 4 Jeff Benjamin went through Local Landmark Designation, the State Tax Credit program, and the Rehabilitation Grant program for his house at 824 Remington. He also saw a lot of duplication through those three processes. He suggested thattle LPC take a more active role in advertising themselves and their programs. Same wara'of promoting historic preservation include advertising in the areas that the Commi5SiattIs targeting and sending information to the property owner, not just to<the prdoi ty As the number of applicants for different programs increases and the work°load increasesil k at different levels of detail depending on the project and the program Ms, Carpenter ixplained tfi`at for State Tax Credit, staff and the LPC need to answer to the State. Localikill. L'Pt "has tried to dovetail their own programs with similar appllcatiolts '1VIr. Benjamin added that the LPC should outline the benefits of having detailed plgift:*: end dimensional drawings ahead of time when renovating a structure. He did suggest'I .... ff,organize the information they already have on renovation and rehabilitation , so the t They dart..provide the applicant with a list of books, magazines, etc. in order to expedite the design process from the beginning. Ms. Carpenter expects the Design Assistance Program to help people as well. Gene Morley initiated historic preservation efforts in Windsor, Colorado in 1990. By 1992, they had adopted an ordinan. to designate iocal.ttistoric structures. Currently they are performing a survey of the city with the help of the State. He thanked the preservationists from Fort Collins far their hetp and has. been inspired by the work that the LPC has done in the City. Ms Carpente..r., appreciated ait of the input,dpd said that she heard strong support for districting She also heard that the three current programs need to go hand in hand, while recognizing thai the. LPC has (e i3 control over the State Tax Credit program. Staff will also work on developing a'cu. rrent database of property owners and their permanent address in orderto reach ;:people with "information more effectively. These ideas will next be discussed in sub=committees artid in an LPC work session. Then the suggestions will be brought back to the LP.Q.4o help change some processes and alleviate perceived Droblems with the Droarams>' that the list of issues on the agenda provided ideas of what areas Local Landmark Designation The threshold of eligible properties was discussed in terms of where does the LPC draw the line. For example, should a house with aluminum siding be designated? Ms. Carpenter explained her thoughts that until the district designation process is implemented, individual contributing buildings should be designated. This would provide the incentive and the opportunity to have the structure rehabilitated or restored. Ms. Landmark Preservation Com ission • Regular Meeting June 25, 1996 Page 5 Weatherford added that many alterations could be reversed. Until districting is an option, individual landmark designation is the only protection for an historic structure. Mr. Hogestad said that there still should be a threshold for approval. For example, pop tops and strange windows should not be acceptable. The Commission discussed'the public's perception of what they do designate. Ms. McWilliams explained that the State has a more purist. attitude towards preservation. State programs and local LPC programs may have different crrtena :Ms ;;Weathertar stated that the LPC should start by pleasing the com unity ;Mr Tangier reminded_ the Commission not to accept structures for designation nd programs that would leppar,ize .. the integrity of local landmark designation. Mr. Hogestadsaid that residential properties must be looked at differently from commercial properties because people have to live there. Ms. Kullman said that homes need to be adaptable to current living styles so that people won't knock them down to build something else Mt T.enner suggested that the Commission not rush to designate property as Soon as they percO t e a threat to it. Ms. McWilliams asked whether designations should be,based on plans for rehabilitation/ restoration, or on what exists today. Ms Kultrrian said that local Landmark designation and other incentive programs would persuade people to restoro`historic structures. Ms. McWilliams explained that a designation may be contingent on: restoration or rehabilitation work. The LPC had no problem with that as:long as there was assurance that the work would be completed as specified Colorado Income Tax Creditfor Historic Preservation Ms. Tunner In#roduced the topic, by discussing the differences in owning a commercial property as apposed to a home Fora residential property, the LPC has not been as strict in their reviews After a discussron with the Colorado Historical Society, she suggested Oo to establish guidelines arid. let the applicant know if there was a construction material that was historically unacceptable. Do not require brand names of products from the applicant, but rather met and ask the applicants to let staff know which methods work for their job so they can pass the information on to the next applicant. Mr. Hogestad stated that the applicant still needed lo provide some documentation of what will be done including dimensional drawings, ,imaterials, and specifications. Mr. Tanner commented that providing the right information at the start would allow the LPC to move through the process more efficiently. Ms. Carpenter suggested creating a standardized form which addresses these requirements Mr. Tanner recommended creating a general cover form which asks for the basic requlrements and use that form with the applications for the other programs. The Commission also discussed keeping the process friendly and educational and making the benefits of the programs and the applicant's efforts more obvious. Local Landmark Rehabilitation Grant Program Ms. Lawrie provided copies of the grant information brochure which the LPC reviewed. Landmark Preservation Comm. on Regular Meeting June 25,1996 Page 6 They felt that the pamphlet should highlight the goals of restoration or rehabilitation and explain the requirements of the program. Ms. Carpenter stated that the problem was distinguishing whether the proposed project was a restoration, rehabilitation, or general maintenance. Mr. Tanner suggested rewriting the brochures in an attemptto clarify the program. Ms. Weatherford noticed that painting was mentioned twice„in. a literature, which could be considered maintenance. Ms. Kullman, remembered that painting was included if it was part of a larger rehabilitation plan The Commission addressed that the intent of the to define what direction the applicant was heade Lawrie asked the Commission for suggestion: application form for the Rehabilitation Grant Prograi the requirements of the State Tax Credit Program I requiring slides or photographs, which would also t a stronger statement needed to be added to the in; funded and that the program is competitive The Commission also mentioned Rehabilitation Grant Program. Th be awarded and if partially funded other method. Ms. McWilliams separately and to have the appilca the application which asks if the Carpenter and Ms. Tuner also i of the I limited The LPC decided that to be eligible for the I and the ns suggested applying Ms. Tunner suggested rc record. In addition, �t all projects would be *,'they have tot vlew the ranking system for the deed to,decida on What"basis partial funding would ojects should be awarded by percentages or some o suggested t0`treat different proposed projects monti,.ie their projects. A question will be added to pil .... was Willing to accept partial funding. Ms. sussed adding a statement to the brochure which inting the next application would go to the bottom was to fund as many projects as possible with the will result in considering only designated properties Assistance Program. The prpblertsith this issue are related to the ordinance. The ordinance might need to be changed'to create a longer time to review a demolition before making a decision. Staff needs time to get the history of the structure, to visit the property, to get the information to the appropriate individuals, for them to have the opportunity to provide input. Ms. Weatherford would like to see a greater penalty created for demolition of an historic structure without a permit. In conclusion, the following were items to be considered by the sub -committee to be added to the ordinance: an extension of time for further, more objective research on the property; 1 to allow the LPC to review the issue if necessary, and a stiffer fine for a demolition of an historic structure without a permit. 0 0 Landmark Preservation Commission Regular Meeting June 25, J 996 Page 7 r)esr �� for Colorado tate Tax Credit ial versus Ms. Carpenter believed a ed that th, Commission members agreed anevel of review for td others #1 show Mr. Frick had stated in the past that heoc be the same level of reviews• be complet►rlg.. the prod more design review because they May to hire design professionals business owners would be more likely bf exterior work the level of submittal information for design revieyt? should<review f The other question addressed how closely the LPC ended on the project itself. Ms. McWilliams explained that thb level of review're n� etrnes for Historic Buildings estside Deslg Ms. McWilliams said Ms. Tunner said that the draft EastsidelWt color in #istoric districts Paint state that the LPC does not review p that currently, according to Section 14-47 of the grdinance, the L?G does reviess color w e LPG decided that the current color. Ms. Tunner stated that the Secretaryaaeresiblena stannda ed adminis o not tat a cu e and Mr. Hogestad added that p review and•may be ha,: ertleswill apply review of color will be an advisory ri�rument is adopted. McWilliams explained that the Standards and GuideUrtes for Historic Prof erciai prole cts.nn� ial project ire should may need to residential as well as comm should required. Mr. Hogestad addressed the issue of submittal requirements and believeode� t to Tunner uired wilt be dependent on the p 1 be standardized. Dimensioned drawings, ratherfhat minimumile ! dimensional drawings Additional drawings and plans req licarts that, at applications stated that she would`inforlr'e apereating a single form for residential ape would be required and suggested, the a licant of their submittal requirements. The Commission discussed that informing PP nizing that it is it would be helpful tp know, materials: that would be used. Ms. McWilliams stated that the before coming back to the applicants should e�cpeClment with different materials and methods, reco importarrtto test products, especially on an historic building,al requ strippers, LPC with a completes aPplicatu�es'manufacturers sheetandardn would be required on stiremeep for desgh review on histonC struct windows, masonry, etc : Detailed drawings for points of attachment with either a sections view or a cross section may also be necessary. staff for designations was also discussed. An application for The kinds of review made by b staff and staff will add any missing history Lord A.andrriark Designation will be reviewed Y to the packet. OTHER BUSINESS: the cost Ms. McWilliams informed the LPC that Clerk &Recorder's Office. The costs are usually the City Clerk's office has been incurring Of recording designations with the County Landmark Preservation Commr_.-.on Regular Meeting June 25, 1996 Page 8 $1 per document and $5 per page. The City Clerk's office has started passing these costs on to the Advance Planning Department. Staff will try to set up a mechanism for charging the applicant at least a portion of that cost. The LPC agreed that if people are interested in designating their property then they should pay the fee. Ms. Tunner said that staff would try to cut down on the numb. f;;pttiotos submitted repetitively for the different programs, but that the State Tax icr.".(,P:rogram must be considered a stand-alone program. In the future, staff 4vll have access #o the photos and information from a central filing area. Ms. Carpenter `said that flYie ofth rrsponsibd�fir3s of the sub committee would be to discuss how to integrate jobs and the filth t" flake it easier for both staff and the applicant to get informs &W .;: The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Submitted by Nicole Sneider, Secretary.