Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 04/25/1995LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Special Regular Meeting April 25, 1995 Council Liaison: Gina Janett Staff Liaison: Joe Frank SUMMARY OF MEETING: The Commission approved the March 14, 1995 minutes as corrected, and approved the April 3, 1995 minutes as read. The Commission unanimously passed a motion to encourage City Council to adopt the Poudre River Land Use Guidelines. The LPC unanimously approved the historic designation of the Colorado and Southern Depot, including the docks and unanimously approved the masonary tuckpointing and addition of gutters to 613 South College Avenue, the Corbin House. The Commission discussed a proposal for 622 South Loomis and the 1996 Budget Process. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Commission Chairman Jennifer Carpenter called the meeting to order at 5:35 pm, 281 North College Avenue. Secretary Diane Slater called the roll. Commission members Jennifer Carpenter, Per Hogestad, Jean Kullman, Carl McWilliams, and James Tanner were present. Bud Frick arrived at 6 pm. Ruth Weatherford was absent. Joe Frank and Carol Tunner represented staff. GUESTS: Tom Sibbald, developer; Tim Reidhead ofCSU Stabilization Center; Bob Smith, Director, Fort Collins Stormwater, Jack Gianola, Depot Project Director, Fort Collins Facilities; Mike Powers, Director Cultural Resources, Library Service, and Parks and Recreation; Rheba Massey, Local History Coordinator; and Karen Canino, co-owner of 613 South College. AGENDA REVIEW: Ms. Tunner reported that there was a new draft for the Eastside-Westside Design Guidelines so discussion would be postponed and added the Overland Trail Report. STAFF REPORT: None. COMMISSION MEMBERS' REPORTS: Ms. Kullman reported on the April 24 Planning and Zoning meeting at which the proposed design guidelines were discussed and said that some members of the public seemed to have misunderstandings about the proposal. Planning and Zoning was not making a recommendation at that time and decided they would like to see an executive summary of the proposed guidelines pointing out the benefits and costs and concluded by voting unanimously to extend the minimum lot requirements. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: For the March 14 minutes, Mr. McWilliams said he would like to add the phrase "as a contributing building in a potential historic district" to page 5, under 318 South Sherwood so the sentence reads "In the absence of material documenting the eligibility of the structure requested of the applicant, Mr. McWilliams said he had looked at the house and thought it had good integrity and was in a potential historic district and would therefore be eligible as a contributingbuilding uilding in a potential historic district." Ms. Kullman moved approval of the March Landmark Preservation Commission Special Regular Meeting Minutes April 25, 1995 Page 2 14, 1995 minutes as corrected and Mr. Tanner seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. The April 3,1995 minutes were accepted as read. POUDRE RIVER LAND USE FRAMEWORK Mr. Make Powers, Director Cultural Resources, Library Service, and Parks and Recreation said that current studies of the area resulted from a riverwalk proposal originally proposed to go from the Downtown Area -Martinez Park to Lincoln and funded for $40,000 by City Council. However, Council then decided to extend the area of the study to include the river from the bike trial to I-25 but kept the funding the same. The decision was made to bring together and streamline all of the previous 20 documents that have studied the area, discussing only ideas previously brought up so they could then start looking at new ideas. He suggested making the area more manageable for study by dividing it up into pieces. The first and biggest piece is the current, old, and future gravel mining operations along the river, which affects a third of the area. He proposed that a memo of understanding be worked out with the gravel companies on how the land might be transferred to the city for public use; how to design and reclaim the gravel pits; and water augmentation, or how to return water to the river. The second piece is to have the study adopted and he is requesting the LPC recommend to City Council to adopt this plan. The third piece is to have a master plan of the river as soon as possible, which has four important aspects. The plan must deal with the gravel mining; the key parcels such as the Old Pickle Plant, Keifer Concrete, and Harmony Gateway, and plans for ownership; develop a partnership with private interests; and develop interim guidelines to protect the river while the study is completed. Ms. Carpenter expressed concern that the master plan hadn't been completed and Mr. Powers said that it is included in the 1996 Budget Process. She asked if the Natural Resources Board has recommended the proposal and Mr. Powers said they have reviewed it but have concerns about the conflict areas, particularly in the downtown area where there are conflicts between development and natural resource interests. Ms. Carpenter commented that the various groups seem to have common interests and it's good that the different groups are getting together. Mr. Tanner said he thought it was valuable for the public to see all of the studies together in one document. In response to a request for public input, Ms. Massey asked if there is a small piece of the river proposal that could be started on. Mr. Powers said he thought the public would get excited about the gravel pit reclamation when they understand how large an area it is. Ms. Carpenter asked how much land the City now owns in the Urban Growth Area and Mr. Powers said that public ownership is currently extensive. Mr. Mc Williams mentioned that he has seen the Historic Resources Inventory of the river area and noted there are two main features: the headgates and diversion works along the river which relate to the agricultural past and the Great Western Sugar Effluent Flume east of Lemay. Mr. Power read the recommendations from page 22 of the document, regarding that the guidelines be endorsed by affected advisory boards; that Council should adopt these recommendations; the Landmark Preservation Commission Special Regular Meeting Minutes April 25, 1995 Page 3 master plan of the river should be developed as soon as possible and be adopted as an element of the master plan; the master plan should encompass the. river corridor within the city's urban growth area and should identify and inter -relate a detailed summary of land use arrangements, policies, and implementation strategies to correspond to sub -area needs and themes. There are five sub -areas, including the historic downtown area. Also, the city should immediately address four critical action elements to preserve future options while the master plan is being developed: acquire key land parcels (includes Keifer, Pickle, Harmony); develop a partnership with private interests regarding development of the Flatiron property; develop a working agreement with gravel mining interests for reclamation and augmentation; and develop and adopt the guidelines for areas close to the river until the master plan is adopted. Mr. Tanner moved that the LPC encourage City Council to adopt the Poudre River Land Use Guidelines and Ms. Kullman seconded the motion, which passed unanimously, 6-0. DESIGNATION OF 136 SOUTH LAPORTE THE C&S FREIGHT DEPOT Ms. Tunner reviewed the history of the depot and introduced Mr. Jim Reidhead and Mr. Bob Smith. Mr. Reidhead noted the importance of the railroad and facility to Fort Collins. It was quite innovative for its time because the extra long dock was able to unload 12 instead of just 6 freight cars. Newspapers of the time discussed the favorable impression of the city imparted by the depot. He pointed out that the back part of the roof had been a hip roof but was changed to a flat roof with parapet and gullwings over the docks in the 1930's. Mr. Hogestad asked if the historic designation includes the freight dock and Ms. Reidhead said they plan on keeping the dock up to lot 28 due to plans for a parking lot beyond that for now and a new City Administration Building in the future. Mr. Hogestad thinks that the dock is such a key piece that he has a problem with taking out the dock for parking and Ms. Carpenter noted that plans change and she objects to taking out an historic structure without plans in place. Mr. Gianola explained that the Facilities Master Plan adopted in 1992 places the future Administration Building on the north side of the lot where the dock currently is. Ms. Carpenter felt that only a few parking spots would be lost and it could be addressed again when the Administration Building is to be built and an approved plan is available. The dock is intrinsic to the historic nature of the site, especially considering the ability to unload 12 rather than 6 freight cars. Ms. Carpenter felt that good design could include the rest of the dock in the building and might be a way to connect them.. Mr. Reidhead pointed out that the dock is in poor condition and if it were left for now as a designated structure, what would be involved in changing that designation. Ms. Tunner said it could be addressed in the future through the design review process and the LPC at that point would either agree or not, to let it be demolished. All decisions can be appealed to the City Council. The dock is a contributing element to the building. Ms. Kullman said she is reluctant to let it be torn down for the reason that once it is torn down it is gone forever and there is nothing else like it in Fort Collins which demonstrates the railroad history. Ms. Massey felt that it would be interesting to incorporate the dock and it could be incorporated in Landmark Preservation Commission Special Regular Meeting Minutes April 25, 1995 Page 4 the future design. Ms. Tunner noted that any proposed changes to the building will be going to the State Historic Society for approval for a State Historical fund grant. Mr. Tanner said he thought it would be worthwhile to look at alternative placements on the lot for the new building. Mr. Gianola gave more information about future City and County long-range plans for this and adjoining blocks. Ms. Carpenter said it is a design problem and that the details could be worked out in the future with sensitive design. Mr. Hogestad said it could be worked out and at this point only the concept exists and it gives opportunities in the future design. Ms. Carpenter pointed out that City Council is sensitive to preservation but it could be reconsidered in the future. Mr. Hogestad said it will depend on the future architecture which is suggested. Mr. Frick pointed out that 15,000 square feet of building will take up a substantial portion of the comer. Mr. Hogestad and Ms. Carpenter suggested that the parking lot circulation be reworked for now. Mr. McWilliams asked about the proposed addition; Mr. Gianola said it would be brick and blend with the building. Ms. Tunner said it is not finalized but would most likely be on the east side of the depot. Mr. Reidhead pointed out that historically, the view lines have been important on the site and that the proposed design incorporates those viewlines, particularly from the south and west. Mr. Tanner asked what the benefits would be for keeping the dock and for how long it would be kept. Ms. Carpenter said she would like to keep it through the design process to leave options open since plans do change and there are no timelines. Ms. Carpenter noted that the minutes of this meeting would be brought in at the future and that changes can be made. Mr. McWilliams said in considering boundaries, it is not wise to consider boundaries that cut through a contributing element of the building and that boundaries should not be established based on what might or might not happen in the future. He feels that the dock should be considered with the building. Mr. Frick asked about the railroad car shown on the plans. He asked if the track would be replaced and Ms. Carpenter said it couldn't be required. Mr. Frick asked if the dock is significant without the track and Ms. Carpenter said there is no reason to take out the dock now since there is no plan in place. She agreed that the building is significant without it but that it shouldn't be removed for a parking lot. Mr. Gianola proposed that they make another proposal which would try to save the dock and still do the parking lot. Ms. Carpenter said that would be fine to work on the parking but it wouldn't be a problem to designate the dock at this time. Ms. Kullman moved to approve the designation of the C&S Freight Depot which would include the dock. Mr. Tanner seconded the motion, which passed unanimously on a roll call vote. CURRENT DESIGN REVIEW: Landmark Preservation Commission Special Regular Meeting Minutes April25, 1995 Page 5 613 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE THE CORBIN HOUSE Ms. Karen Canino discussed the proposed tuckpointing and roofgutter work at 613 South College. Canino's is the recipient of a rehabilitation grant. The LPC asked about the proposed power -washing and Ms. Canino said it will be done by DWB Masonry who has experience with historic buildings, having done excellent work on both Tuesday Morning and Starry Night Coffee Shop buildings. Their brick is a hard surface brick and they will be doing a test spot. Ms.Tunner expressed confidence in the mason doing the work, having met with him to discuss his credentials. Mr. Frick asked if the gutters would be painted or aluminum color and where they would be installed. Ms. Canino said they will follow the established lines of the building to diminish the appearance and will be installed on the south side where they will not be visible from the street. In the past, gutters were painted but the paint has been removed. The proposed gutters are galvanized and will not be painted at this time. Mr. Tanner moved approval of the tuckpointing and addition of gutters to Canino's and Mr. McWilliams seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None on the agenda. OTHER BUSINESS: 622 SOUTH LOOMIS Ms.Tunner introduced a request by Tom Sibbald for an historic significance determination for 622 South Loomis, a bungalow built in 1927, for which he has a contract to buy in process. Since the structure is over 50 years old, any request to demolish the structure would automatically bring it under the purview of the Demolition Delay Ordinance at which point it would be decided if it meets the criteria for a delay at which point other alternatives to demolition are explored. At present, it would most likely be considered to be a contributing building in a potential historic district, although districting the area is not currently in the LPC's workplan. Ms. Carpenter noted that both the street and the home itself are intact and that it contributes to the character of the neighborhood. She would be unwilling to forego the process not knowing what is planned to replace the structure. She noted that the city has a conflict of policy in desiring both higher density for the city core and preservation of the historic design. In response to a request for citizen input, Ms. Massey said that the goal of the Westside Neighborhood Guidelines is to preserve the neighborhoods adjacent to the university but at present there are no enforceable measures to do so. Mr. Tanner said he would like to consider other ways of dealing with this situation besides going through the demolition delay steps to decide if the building Landmark Preservation Commission Special Regular Meeting Minutes April 25,1995 Page 6 is historic or not. Mr. Frank said that current zoning would allow a duplex, or fourplex, with permission, from Planning and Zoning. Mr. Sibbald said he would like to redevelop in the neighborhood. Ms. Carpenter said that it is not necessary to destroy the historic character of the neighborhoods adjacent to the university in order to provide more student housing. Mr. Frank noted that the Eastside/Westside Neighborhoods Guidelines protect the neighborhood character while still allowing for conversions and additions to take place. 1996 BUDGET PROCESS The Commission said they would like to request funding for surveying potential historic districts. Ms. Massey said that districts are normally done by subdivision boundaries with at least 50% of the buildings being contributing and the other 50% or less may be non-contributing. Mr. McWilliams asked how detailed the documentation must be and Ms. Massey said the first page of the historic resource of merit form could be used. She noted that this would cost about $25 per building. Ms. Massey asked if the LPC is interested in a National or Local Designation and Ms. Carpenter said local. $35,000-$40,000 should be adequate to get started to do the survey work and designations for the East side, Holy Family, and West Mountain districts. Mr. Frank said if they request $20,000 for the Rehabilitation Grant Program and $20,000 miscellaneous, the total budget request would be $80,000. The meeting adjourned at 8:30 pm. Submitted by Diane Slater, Secretary.