Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 02/28/1995LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Special Regular Meeting February 28, 1995 Council Liaison: Gina Jarrett Staff Liaison: Joe Frank SUMMARY OF MEETING: The LPC approved the drawings for 154-156 North College as submitted by the applicant with the provision that the applicant return with the final construction documents for the kickplate. The LPC approved the use of Mendoza brick for the piers on the Salvation Army Building, with specific directions for installation. The LPC reviewed the applications which are complete to this point for the Rehabilitation Grant Program and approved local landmark eligibility for 3 applicants: 425 East Elizabeth, 725 Mathews, and 518 Peterson. The LPC discussed the documentation of the work on the rehabilitation of the Linden Hotel. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Commission Chairman Jennifer Carpenter called the meeting to order at 5:40 pm, 281 North College Avenue. Secretary Diane Slater called the roll. Commission members Jennifer Carpenter, Bud Frick, Per Hogestad, Jean Kullman, James Tanner, and Ruth Weatherford were present. Carl McWilliams was late. Joe Frank and Carol Tunner represented staff. GUESTS: Theresa Lucero, City Planner; Ted and Ellen Zibell, owners of 154-156 North College. AGENDA REVIEW: Ms. Tunner said that Mike Powers, Director of Cultural Resources, Library and Parks, will appear at the March 14 meeting and added a discussion of the meeting with Affordable Housing Board under Other Business. Ms. Carpenter added discussions of the grant applications and the CPI fundraising luncheon. Current Design Review was heard first. STAFF REPORT: The City's Burlington Northern Depot project will include an addition to the building. They will apply for a State Historical Fund grant. Mr.Frank said that the meeting with the Affordable Housing Board will discuss the demolition ordinance and process. Ms. Carpenter would like to have materials from the HRPP which can be used to show compatibility between historic preservation and affordable housing. COMMISSION MEMBERS' REPORTS: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None to approve CURRENT DESIGN REVIEW: 154-156 NORTH COLLEGE - EXPLORATORY DEMOLITION REPORT Mr. Zibell reported v..t the wood upper facade had been removed and showed pictures of the cement stucco over brick underneath. It is flat with a relief top and the brick appears to be in good condition. Landmark Preservation Commission Special Regular Meeting Minutes February 28, 1995 Page 2 They would like to remove the stucco and if any brick needs to be replaced, it will be matched. If they redo the facade, the glass blocks will come out. A modified design was shown, with the front entry splayed at 30 degrees and the kickplate raised up to 24". They will raise the awning and keep it above the windows. There is a 13' ceiling on the interior, 3' above the bricks which come down to the glass block. The interior woodwork seems to indicate that the display windows were originally the height shown in their proposal. Mr. Frick felt that the transom could be about 2' tall to be traditional and not go across the front of the building but rather in above the display and then back out. Doors are usually about 7' tall with a transom above it, in other buildings built about the same time as this building. Ms.Tunner said that staff recommends following the archaeological evidence found in the building of what might have originally been there. Ms. Weatherford moved approval of the drawing as submitted by the applicant with the provision the applicant bring in the details of the kickplate. Ms. Kullman seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-1. Ayes: Hogestad, Kullman, Tanner, Weatherford, Carpenter. Nay: Frick, due to the proportion of the transoms. DISCUSSION ITEMS: ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGE - LOOMIS BLOCK. 217 LINDEN STREET BRICK PIERS The contractors will try to replace as much as possible of the two piers on either side of the door with bricks from the Loomis block and patch above where brick is missing with brick from the Mendoza brick yard in Denver.. Mr. Frick moved that the LPC accept the brick from Mendoza brick yard for the Salvation Army Building piers; that they will replace the existing patches that had been recently installed and they will tint the mortar to match existing, with butter joints on both sides and, on the north pier that is sawcut, the lower half will be sealed to maintain its integrity; they will rebuild the top half of the pier with the replacement brick; and then a trim piece will be installed over the sawcut joint on both sides of both piers that frame the store front at the doorway. Ms. Carpenter made a friendly amendment that they will use as much of the salvaged Loomis brick as possible. Ms. Weatherford seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Mr. McWilliams arrived at 6 pm. REHABILITATION GRANT PROGRAM - APPLICATIONS REVIEW Mr. Frick removed himself as a member of the Commission for this discussion and become a member of the public. Mr. Frank said that review of applications must be complete by March 14 and a final decision is due by ' ..uch 28. Ms. Theresa Lucero said she would like to determine eligibility for landmark status before the applicant can be considered for a grant. Ms. Weatherford noted that some situations and information have changed since the HRPP was published and some priorities of rating Landmark Preservation Commission Special Regular Meeting Minutes February 28, 1995 Page 3 may need to be re-evaluated. There is $40,300 available for disbursement, although the LPC may elect to spend any portion of the funds and may also decide to fund a part of a particular project. There are 4 commercial requests for a total of $14,219 with $187,000 in matching funds and 11 residential requests for a total of $23,875 and matching funds of $101,604. The LPC will prioritize the applications which are complete at this point. First, eligibility will be determined for applications which are not yet designated. KARLA OCEANIK, 425 EAST ELIZABETH, SPENCER HOUSE This designation application is based on its architecture and being in an historic district. Ms. Weatherford said she believes they are eligible for local landmark status and is impressed by the research and vision in bringing this structure back to the original. Ms. Carpenter commented that this is a dramatic change which will add to the Laurel School National Register district. Mr. Frank noted that the LPC should make landmark designation contingent upon the completion of the proposed work. Ms. Weatherford moved approval of the Oceanik residence for eligibility for landmark status with the provision that the home be restored as closely as possible to the photo submitted and if not restored, eligibility will be denied. Mr. McWilliams seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. JEFF BRIDGES, 725 MATHEWS, LITTLE -BAKER HOUSE Ms. Weatherford commented that the application was well prepared. Mr. Hogestad said the porch restoration made sense but questioned some items in the budget. The HRPP discussed the preservation necessity as being conditional upon the current owner's ability and plans to take care of the building. Other criteria include improper alteration or rehabilitation, neglect, threatened physically by plans external to the building, plans or policies that might affect the character of the property or setting. Ms. Kullman moved approval of the Little -Baker house for eligibility for landmark status. Ms. Weatherford seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. B.F. AYERS HOUSE, 518 PETERSON Ms. Weatherford noted that there are few foursquares left. The owner will be bringing in an abstract of previous ownership transfers. It appears to be eligible based on the architecture and names associated with it, especially Laura Makepeace. Mr. McWilliams moved that the B.F. Ayers house be determined eligible for landmark designation. Ms. Weatherford seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. The Commission then discussed and rated each grant application. Landmark Preservation Commission Special Regular Meeting Minutes February 28, 1995 Page 4 518 PETERSON STREET, KATHRYN AND STEVEN MALERS Some proposed items may not be eligible. Mr. Tanner and Ms. Weatherford suggested that in the future, applications be more specific about the work proposed and that whenever possible the project take the structure back to the original as closely as possible and that a better form be designed for future applicants. The applicant would like to replace the picture window with a more historic style. The LPC said that the porch should go back to the historic photo and the front door and screen door require more historic information. As a citizen, Mr. Frick asked if applicants will be required to come in for a review of the construction drawings after the grant application is approved and if the money would be disbursed only after all work is complete. Ms. Tunner said a record of all work proposed would be required and Mr. Frank said the conditions of the contract are that applicants must submit drawings before the work is done and money will be distributed when the work is complete. He will check on extension of deadlines and Mr. Tanner thought flexibility would be best. Ms. Weatherford said the shutters and awnings could be removed but their replacement is not eligible for grant monies. Ms. Carpenter suggested consulting the design guidelines regarding awnings. The front doors are okay with either option. Ms. Tunner suggested that the porch columns go back to the original. lei &OV6,13:r709i For the categories of the preservation form, alterations are defined as follows: minor: to a small degree, a structure which does not need repair other than surface repair; moderate: an improper alteration or relocation refers to structures where alterations have diminished its importance but could be corrected; and high: a high degree of alterations which have significantly altered or the historic features have been covered which has resulted in the loss in some or all of its integrity. Categories of neglect: including but not limited to physical destruction, damage, vandalism, or natural processes to the property resulting in its destruction or deterioration minor: a structure which does not apparently need any repair or sun°ace repair: moderate; to a moderate degree, refers to structures with one or more significant defects which could be corrected and made sound: high; a high degree of damage. GRANT CRITERIA: Alterations: moderate Neglect: minor Adverse conditions: none Plans: minor Other conditions: none Overall necessity: moderate Effort: moderate Matching: moderate Total Score: 13 • Landmark Preservation Commission Special Regular Meeting Minutes February 28, 1995 Page 5 Ms. Carpenter suggested that in the future, she would like a cover sheet which explains how much they are asking for; how much they're putting in; what it is they are doing; a picture of the way it was; and a picture of the way it is now. This would be similar to the way the State Historic Fund application looks, with a small box for the information. Mr. Frank suggested that in the future, high preservation necessity structures could be targeted and owners notified of the grant programs, such as in the Remington Street area where older homes are significantly deteriorated. 725 MATHEWS, JEFF BRIDGES Alterations: minor Neglect: moderate Adverse: minor Plans: minor Other: moderate Overall: 6 Effort: 4 Matching 1 Total: 11 The railings and window replacement are eligible but the lights are not because the grant does not pay for elements that are not original although the electrical work could be part of the match. 425 EAST ELIZABETH KARLA OCEANIK Alterations: high Neglect: minor Adverse: minor Plans: none Other: minor Overall: 9 Effort: 6 Matching: 4 Total: 19 The electrical work is not eligible although the matching funds can be used for fixtures, which includes wiring, heating, and plumbing, and all other work proposed is eligible. CHILDRENS MERCANTILE COMPANY The LPC suggested including a financial statement as criteria in the future, under preservation necessity, with subcategories to check off, such as could the project be done without this funding to gain an understanding of how important this funding is to the project. The LPC would also like to discuss the issue of need as part of necessity and the affect on threat as a future agenda item. Landmark Preservation Commission Special Regular Meeting Minutes February 28, 1995 Page 6 Alterations: high Neglect: none Adverse: none Plans: none Other: none Overall: 9 Effort: 4, not using original materials and short cutting on lintels over windows Matching: 4 Total: 17 The LPC noted that matching funds cannot come from other grants. The exterior is eligible for the match but is covered by other grants, and the doors are eligible. To be used for the match are: the electrical, heat, air, and plumbing. All interior other work is not eligible. HARMONY MILL, 131 LINCOLN Alterations: high Neglect: high Adverse: high Plans: high Other: none Overall: 9 Effort: 4 Matching: 4 Total: 17 The LPC discussed the difference between threat and necessity. Also, applicants should know that a higher rating is given for having higher matching funds. All applicants should be asked if they put down all of the funds that will be used for matching. The windows are eligible for the matching portion. 2513 WEST PROSPECT ROAD, BRAD PACE Alterations: none Neglect: moderate Adverse: minor Plans: none Other: none Overall: 3 Effort: 4 Matching: 1 Total: 8 Landmark Preservation Commission Special Regular Meeting Minutes February 28, 1995 Page 7 103 NORTH SHERWOOD, RICHARD AND NANCY LEA Alterations: minor Neglect: minor Adverse: none Plans: none Other: none Overall: 3 Effort: 4 Matching: 2 Total: 9 OTHER BUSINESS: The Design Review Sub -Committee (Hogestad and Frick) reported a number of items which did not meet specifications: examples of paint failure; water leaking in at windows; glue on windows coming out; where the new plinth meets the stoop allowing water in; poor patching using epoxy cement on the pilasters. They recommend that the DDA hold the final payment until problems are fixed and suggest that the architect, Vaught -Frye do a punch fist of items relating to the exterior work. Another important item which must be done is neutralizing the brick and Vaught -Frye should do a litmus test. Mr. Tanner suggested that the LPC ask for documentation of inspection by the architects. The meeting adjourned at 9:20 pm. Submitted by Diane Slater, Secretary.