HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 09/11/1985LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Minutes of Meeting of September 11, 1985
The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. in the Conference Roan of
the Historic Preservation Office at 200 West Mountain Avenue.
Members present were Dick Beardmore, Michael Ehler, Holly Richter,
Wayne Sundberq, and Carol Tunner.
Staff present was Sherry Albertson -Clark.
Food Co -Op 250 East Mountain
Applicant - Larsen Associates
Request - Conceptual Approval of Facade Renovation
Gene Mitchell of Old Town Associates spoke in support of this
application, as a propertyowner to the west. He asked that the
decision made by the Commission at the September 4 meeting be
reconsidered. He added that redesign to the original storefront would
result in a large mass of glass and would not be compatible with the
remainder of the building. He stated that he want continuity with Old
Town Square and that the design proposed at the previous meeting would
be the way to accomplish this.
Larry Trampe of Larsen Associates spoke explaining the application. He
added that the request is to ask the Commission to review and approve
the application that was denied at the last meeting.
John Renhow of Larsen Associates discussed detail and materials of
three new concepts for the facade, indicating that the materials would
be painted metal and wood.
Larry added that he understands the LPC's position regarding wanting
the original design but that the owners are trying to improve the area
and make it functional, as well.
Dick replied that the Commission does consider functional needs and
that the three concepts do provide more daylight and doorways into the
space. He asked for clarification of what the application before the
Commission is to be.
Larry replied that he prefers the design submitted for the last meeting
since it is most ccmpatible and ties together the adjacent facade.
Gene spoke on behalf of the Co-op, condo association and as an adjacent
propertyowner requesting approval of design I (as submitted for the
previous meeting).
Dick asked if there was a preference of the three new concepts.
Larry responded that he would prefer C and asked staff about the
interpretation of the design guidelines.
Sherry replied that these are only guidelines, not standards and that
policy #1 historic reconstruction vs, contemporary redesign is
appropriate in this case. She added that only conceptual approval
could be obtained at this meeting.
Gene asked when final approval could be received and asked about final
submittal requirements.
Dick replied that a special meeting was scheduled for September 19 and
that working drawings are necessary to meet final submittal
requirements. He asked staff to explain the action taken at the last
meeting on this application.
Sherry summarized the last meeting and the action taken, indicating
that the application was denied on a 3-2 vote with direction given to
the applicant to design the renovation in keepinq with the original
storefront character.
Gene spoke, addressinq Carol, explaining his position in supportinq
design I.
Susan Green of Food Co -Op spoke, explaining the future potential use of
this space.
Dick replied that he was confused over the intended use of the space.
Susan replied that the idea for a cafe is very long-term.
Dick clarified that it is difficult to consider long-term plans in the
consideration of applications and asked if there was a motion on this
application.
Michael moved to approved design I.
Carol seconded the motion.
Wayne clarified Robert's Rules of order, saying Michael could not make
the motion to approve this application, since he had voted for the same
application previously.
Michael withdrew his motion.
Holly asked for further discussion before the motion. She asked if the
reason the original, reconstruction is not being proposed is due to the
use changes in the space.
Gene replied that it was not due to use changes and that the original
design would look like a sour note due to the adjacent facade.
Dick added that his recollection was that the original design was not
proposed due to the use.
Holly stated that in her opinion, the building did not originally give
a feel of continuity.
2
Larry stated that at the last meeting most of the discussion was on
changing use of the space.
Wayne stated that he would throw out concept B, since it is replicatinq
something that never existed. He added that concept A is contemporary
design and that design I is to give continuity to the buildinq as it
exists.
Susan Green stated that there isn't enough space to put in 6' doors and
maintain the opening for future options on B.
Dick asked questions regarding the proportions of the entry.
Wayne slmmarized that B wouldn't work without major re-workinq of the
structure.
Carol moved to approve design I.
Michael seconded the motion.
Sherry clarified that this is conceptual approval only and that the
reasons for supporting the motion need to be clearly stated by each
member.
Carol amended the motion to say "conceptual" approval.
Michael seconded the amended motion.
Wayne stated that some of the guidelines may be in conflict with each
other (ie. #1 and storefront elements).
Dick discussed the guidelines briefly.
Wayne added that he feels that design I is compatible with the existing
facade.
Carol asked for clarification regarding concept B.
Susan Green replied that this concept could be done but would not work
for future plans for a recessed doorway.
Michael stated that none of the designs follow the original
foundations.
Carol asked how much,of a problem this is.
Dick replied that it may not make much of a difference and asked for a
vote on the motion.
Holly voted yes, on the basis that this design is repetitious of
elements on the adjacent building.
Michael voted yes for the same reasons as before and added that the
quidelines are somewhat flexible and that the option of compatible
desiqn with remaininq elements exists, as design I does.
3
r�
u
Wayne voted yes for the same reasons as Michael.
Carol abstained, stating that she feels this is a loss of very valuable
retail space and .that it is a mistake not to go back to the original
design. She added that as a pure preservationist, she believes we are
losing this building by not requiring the original storefront and that
she is not voting against the motion due to the option of canpatibility
of design.
Dick voted no for the same reasons as stated at the last meeting,
adding that the building was originally proposed as part of the Old
Town project and therefore, would have been done under the Secretary of
the Interior's Standards for rehabilitation. He added that due to the
temporary nature of this use, the facade should be designed to the
historical storefront or a contemporary redesign used. He expressed
concern that to a novice, the facade will look like the original,
rather than a renovation.
Motion passed 3-1 with one abstention.
Gene Mitchell thanked the Commission for their time and added that in
the future, he would be interested in the retail potential of this
building. If that happens, he indicated that he would re -do the entire
facade more to the original storefront design.
Avery House - 328 West Mountain
Applicant - Steve White for City of Fort Collins
Request - Approval of Downspout Extensions and Screens
Dick stated that he has a conflict of interest in being on the Poudre
Landmarks Foundation board and would be abstaining from participation
on this item. At this time, Wayne Sundberq chaired the meeting.
Steve White presented the application, indicating that the downspoutinq
would be extended from the existing 3 west elevation downspouts. He
added that the extensions would be beyond the foundation plantings and
would be painted green to match the trim on the building. He stated
that after an inspection, it has been discovered that the window
screens have been caulked -in and therefore would need to be replaced.
Replacement screens would be attached over the existing frame by the
use of new wood frames, painted green to match the trim on the
building.
Michael asked for clarification regarding the screens and how they
would be attached.
Steve explained that the existing screen frames cannot be easily
removed and that a new frame with screen would be attached to the
existing frames.
Holly asked if attachment would harm the stone of the building.
Steve replied that there could be sane damage, but that the windows are
below grade and efforts would be taken to minimize damage.
4
Michael asked for further clarification regarding installation of the
screens.
Steve added that the screen would be placed between the existinq and
old frames and that the new frame would be attached with wing latches,
so that the new screens would be removeable.
Carol asked if the windows are to be open all day.
Steve replied that the screens are to allow ventilation of excess
moisture and that there would not be any security with the screens. He
added that the building would have to be locked -up and the screens and
windows closed each night.
Wayne asked if the LPC could review both applications.
Sherry replied that the application has been amended to include both
items.
Steve updated Holly on the issue of the downspouting.
Holly asked if the water could drain back to the buildinq.
Steve stated that the downspoutings will be extended to the edge of the
turf.
Michael asked the lenqth of the downspouts.
Steve replied that they are between 4 - 51.
Wayne asked if there was a motion on this application.
Holly moved to approved the application for downspouting extensions and
replacement of window screens.
Carol seconded the motion.
Motion passed 4-0 with one abstention.
Other Business
Sherry qave a reminder of the special meeting for September 19 and
listed the items to be on that agenda.
The Commission asked staff to write a letter to Downing and Leach,
regarding the nature of demolition work underway on the Linden Hotel
and express concern that what the Commission approved in the way of
exploratory demolition may be exceeded by present work.
Dick gave a reminder of the Cultural Resources Board meetinq on
September 18 to consider non-consentual designation of the Old Post
Office.
5
•
After discussion on
in favor of the
office.
this matter, Dick moved for the Commission to speak
CM'S non-consentual designation of the Old Post
Carol seconded the motion.
Motion passed 5-0.
Discussion took place reqardinq reschedulinq of the worksession with
legal and zoninq staff. The tentative date set was Monday, October 21,
1985 at 5:30 p.m. Dinner will be provided to those in attendance.
Meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m.
5