Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 03/08/2000E LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting March 08, 2000 Minutes Council Liaison: Scott Mason (226 — 4824) Staff Liaison: Joe Frank (221-6376) Commission Chairperson: Per Hogestad (303-292-1875) SUMMARY OF MEETING: The LPC determined the Wright Life building at 200 Linden Street as non-contributing to the Old Town Fort Collins Historic district and recommended that it not be considered contributing to the National Register Historic District. The LPC also reviewed conceptual plans for a new building, where the Wright Life building currently exists. The rear addition to 210-218 Walnut Street was approved. The LPC recommended the allocation of funds to projects for the 2000 Landmark Rehabilitation Grant Fund Program. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Mr. Hogestad called the meeting to order at 5:40 p.m. at 281 North College Avenue. Commission members Angela Milewski, Bud Frick, Rande Pouppirt, Janet Ore, Angie Aguilera, and Agnes Dix were present. Carol Tunner and Timothy Wilder represented staff. GUESTS: Bill Wright, owner, 200 Linden Street, and Ray Kawano, officer, Bob Datson, managing architect, Pete Palumbo, architect, Roger Engel, project manager from CyberCon Corp.; Jay Hardy, director, Downtown Development Authority; Dave and Patty Lawser, owners of the Preston Farm; Joe Knape, owner of 641 Remington Street; Steven Bauman, owner of 638 Whedbee Street; Ashley Harvey, owner of 140 North McKinley. AGENDA REVIEW: None. STAFF REPORTS: None. COMMISSION MEMBERS' REPORTS: Ms. Tunner gave a report from the Downtown Development Authority meeting of March 2, 2000. She reported that Mr. Paul Jensen appeared before the DDA regarding the old Armory and reported on the LPC's review of his conceptual plans for the building. The DDA could not financially support the re- roofing or the proposed eight -foot wall for the back entrance. They are concerned about revising the handicapped ramp in the rear. The DDA will support the front fagade and work done to the right-of-way. They also voted to grant them $68,800 based on the cost of exterior projects including the development of the front and rear of the building, the west elevation, and site improvements that are necessary for the building's re -use. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The January 12, 2000 LPC meeting minutes were accepted as submitted. Landmark Preservation Commission March 8, 2000 Meeting Minutes Page 2 CURRENT DESIGN REVIEW: 200 Linden Street, Historic Elks Building — Conceptual Review to Demolish Existing Building and Build New Building (Bill Wright. Wright Life) The Wright Life Building was built in 1903 originally as a three-story stone and brick structure. Currently, the building is one-story and the original brick is covered with stucco. It served as the Elk's Hall for many years. Staff recommended that the building be considered non-contributing to the National Register and Local Landmark districts, because of the extensive alterations done to the building. Ms. Tunner reviewed the criteria that is used to determine whether a building is eligible as a contributing structure. She concluded that the building has been altered so much that it no longer conveys the feel of the original three-story Elk's Hall. Ms. Ore also considered the building non-contributing. Mr. Hogestad asked if there was any public input and there was none. Ms. Ore moved that the LPC determine the status of 200 Linden Street as non- contributing to the Local Landmark District and recommend to the National Register that they determine the same. Ms. Dix seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. (7-0) Mr. Frick discussed the idea of taking the building back to the three-story Elk's Club building. 200 Linden Street — The Wriaht Life Building — A Conceptual Review of a New Building Ms. Tunner explained that staff recommended that the storefront and the transoms line up with other buildings on the block, according to Guideline #32. The rear could be designed to be more inviting, also according to the guidelines. More elements should be taken from the historic buildings, like grouping the windows together. The applicant also submitted an elevation, which portrayed the historic buildings next door as well. Ms. Tunner reviewed the history of the site and showed slides of the current building and other buildings at the corners of Walnut and Linden. The brick wall of the Mercer Block next door, at the rear is deteriorating and needs to be re -built. She pointed out the basement entrance on the corner that does not have the original railing. It was a pipe railing with ball connections. Bill Wright, owner, said that they had the building since 1984. They have an interest in the downtown area and progressing with this project, with some direction from the LPC. Pete Palumbo, architect, handed out new drawings. He explained that they now propose that the second, third, and fourth floors be used as residential. He presented two schemes, one that is modern and one that plays on more historic designs. He asked the LPC's opinion on the fourth floor, which would be set back and the balconies. Ms. Tunner addressed the balcony and showed pictures of existing balconies in Old Town. Mr. Palumbo also proposed a cafe at the main level with patio dining. One issue was a new canopy, proposed as steel with signage. Another issue is the storefront alignment with neighboring historic structures. Staff recommended setting Landmark Preservation Commis • March 8, 2000 Meeting Minutes Page 3 back between the buildings, but City Plan suggests aligning the buildings. They would also like to keep the basement staircase and use it. Scheme A, the more modern design, had some elements from the old building, including a band between the second and third story to imitate the cornice. They would like to install a modern vault or skylight. The second story windows would appear to wrap around the building, from Linden's Brewery. Scheme A was a clean design that was less ornate. They could add more brick detail by stepping the brick design. Scheme B was a more literal attempt at re-creating an historic building. That design played off the Linden Hotel and was basically brick. Mr. Hogestad asked the Commission members to present their opinions on the conceptual schemes that were presented. Mr. Frick asked why they were not planning on replicating the old Elk's building, given they have photo -documentation and the first floor exists. Mr. Palumbo did not want to re-create historic building, but rather set the new structure apart from the old. Bob Datson, managing architect, reported that they had a structural engineer look at the foundation, which is marginal. The Commission discussed whether they wanted to re-create false historic buildings and whether that worked in Old Town. They discussed whether the Children's Mercantile building was successful. Ms. Tunner explained that you could reconstruct historic buildings when you have good photo -documentation, but it is very difficult. Ms. Ore said that this is a chance to do something new that still fits in with Old Town and in the future will show the evolution of the area. Mr. Pouppirt asked the applicants which scheme they preferred. Mr. Wright said that he was divided between the two schemes. He suggested that scheme A have more detail and scheme B have less detail. He added that he was more interested in the function and marketability of the building but that he preferred A. Mr. Pouppirt agreed with Mr. Wright, that scheme A with more detail would be appropriate. Ms. Aguilera suggested that the storefronts line up. Ms. Ore commented that scheme B would take the corner back to an 1890s look, and what was built there was more of a design from the turn of the century with more classic features. Ms. Dix agreed with Ms. Ore. She added that the building did not originally have a corner entrance and she was concerned with the fourth floor, which might overwhelm the rest of the street. She said that she was concerned about the balconies, but there are similar railing designs on the other buildings in Old Town. She commented that the south elevation seemed busy. The first floor windows seem smaller in relation to the others storefronts on the block. Ms. Ore agreed that the fourth floor is dominating. The Commission discussed the appearance of the fourth floor and the treatment of brick and stucco. Ms. Milewski explained that how the mass of the building affects the street is important. Unless the building is being duplicated, than copying details is false. This building should not compete with the surrounding historic buildings because it is in a prominent location. She agreed that lining up the windows and cornices is important. She suggested that they really downplay the fourth story and thought that the colors would be important. The design should be subdued and complimentary. Landmark Preservation Commission ' March 8, 2000 Meeting Minutes Page 4 They discussed the mass and height of the proposed building in relation to the surrounding structures. The Linden Hotel is one hundred forty-nine feet at its highest point. They would like to match the height of the Linden and become a presence on that corner. The third story comes in at forty—five feet, around the cornice line of the Linden Hotel. The fourth story would be set back from that point. Ms. Milewski concluded that the fourth story structure would not have the windows and cornices lined up with the rest of the block. She identified this as an important feature and concern. Mr. Frick agreed that they should align the window heights, transom lines, and the kickplate height. He also agreed that the design should be subdued and simple. He asked if there was a way that they could create the residential space behind the parapet wall. Mr. Palumbo explained that the intent was to create a loft space inside the fourth story. Mr. Frick asked if they could pull the ceiling height down. He commented that he did prefer scheme A. Mr. Hogestad also preferred scheme A. He encouraged the applicants to look at the storefronts in the neighborhood. He commented that the design did not read as a commercial building. He liked the articulated step back that created a break up in the design. He was not concerned with the fourth floor. He thought that it would be so dissimilar in material that it would work and be less associated with the building. He suggested that they look at the proportion and relationship of the windows on the original building and to group them in three's. Mr. Hogestad commented that simple detail such as corbeling the brick; some soldier courses or rowlocks would be nice. Mr. Frick agreed and added that the contrast between the brick and the pre -cast be a shade off and not appear as white against red. Also shadow lines and different textures would add subtle detail. Mr. Hogestad asked if the hips would be made of Cal -wall. He suggested that a standing seam roof be used instead, because the Cal -wall is so different from the materials being used in Old Town. They are also set back behind the parapet. Mr. Palumbo explained that maybe just the one on the west elevation will be a skylight and the others would be vaulted ceilings. Mr. Hogestad said that the standing seam roof would relate better with the structure on the adjacent Linden Hotel. The Commission continued to discuss the fourth floor and the parapet. Mr. Pouppirt said that it would not be very visible, until about a half a block away. Mr. Frick and Mr. Hogestad explained that the fourth floor would be very visible from a distance, on Mountain and along Walnut. Mr. Hogestad commented that the fourth floor should be designed well. Ms. Ore was concerned that it must fit in with the district. Ms. Aguilera and Mr. Frick discussed redesigning it to be set back more, lowered, or off set. Ms. Aguilera suggested that they increase the parapet to hide the fourth floor. Mr. Engel explained that as you look down the street the parapets do not all match. The Commission discussed how the window height and cornices do all match. They suggested that the windows on the proposed buildings also match. Ms. Ore also addressed the proportions of storefront level of the first floor on the west side. She explained that this was the most prominent fagade and it's not quite in the same proportions as the adjacent storefront. The lines replicate, but overall the entrance looks like a hotel or a bank and the windows are out of proportion. Mr. Frick asked if the planned basement stairway is in the public right-of-way. Ms. Tunner added a Landmark Preservation Commisle • March 8, 2000 Meeting Minutes Page 5 clarification on guideline #41, which addresses a pedestrian oriented storefront design. This includes a kickplate, large glass display windows, and a recessed entry at street level with a transom above. Mr. Hogestad added that he would like to see the building aligned with the streetscape, rather than erode the street edge. Mr. Frick added that the details of the connections of the new building and the neighboring historic structures are important. Ms. Milewski explained that this building would be important because it is a corner building. Ms. Ore commented that if the building is really good new construction, than there will be no doubt what is old and what is new. Mr. Hogestad asked if there was any public input. Jay Hardy, Director of the DDA, said that he was interested in the project. G IV - L 10 vrarnut arreei. anver Will — Haamon zo near (Jonn Arnolfo) Mr. Frick left the discussion because of a conflict -of -interest; he is working on the project. Ms. Tunner explained that the applicant would like to enlarge the kitchen with a nine -foot addition to the rear of the buildings. The backs of these buildings have been altered throughout the past years. Other changes included moving one window and two doors. One window and door will also be removed. The color and stucco finish and new gutters will match the existing building. Mr. Pouppirt moved to approve the addition to the rear of 210-218 Walnut Street, as conceptual and final approval. Ms. Aguilera seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. (6-0) Landmark Rehabilitation Grant Program Allocations (Timothv Wilder. Citv Planner Mr. Hogestad and Mr. Frick discussed whether Mr. Frick had a conflict -of -interest for this issue because he is on the board for the Historic Fort Collins Development Corporation. They determined that Mr. Frick does not have a conflict -of -interest because he had nothing to gain. Mr. Wilder reported on the final ranking scores for each project. He further discussed staff's recommended scores for criteria 3, "Resource Significance". The significance score for the Preston Farm granary was raised from a 9 to a 10, because initially they believed that the project was for the house and not the granary. The Commission discussed whether that change would alter the ranking of the projects. Mr. Wilder explained that for criteria 3, no project received less than a five, which is awarded if a property is a Local Landmark. They decided that they did not need to further discuss criteria 3. He reported that they had almost $40,000 available because some of the past year's projects had not been completed. This year, four of the projects are non-residential and thirteen are residential. Staff felt that this was a good balance. Mr. Hogestad asked if any applicant or member of the public would like to make a comment. No one wanted to make a comment. Mr. Frick moved to approve the 2000 Local Landmark Rehabilitation Grant Program allocation of funding for project 1 through 13 (including two 12's). Ms. Milewski seconded the motion. Landmark Preservation Commission March 8, 2000 Meeting Minutes Page 6 Ashley Harvey, citizen, arrived late and asked if the posted rankings had been accepted. When told it had, she left. Ms. Aguilera discussed her concern about the design review and giving funding for the garage at Peterson Street. If part of the work would not be approved by the LPC or the applicant would not accept partial funding then should that money be available for another project. Ms. Milewski explained that each of the projects would have to come through design review. Mr. Hogestad commented that the applicant might change the proposed work to meet the requirements of the LPC. He suggested that the LPC request a letter from staff to the applicant explained the part of the current proposal that would not be funded or approved. Mr. Wilder said that he would send a letter to the applicant that explained the LPC's concern regarding cutting the eaves of the structure. Mr. Hogestad explained that it the applicant had questions about the proposed work, he could come in for a conceptual review. The motion passed unanimously. (7-0) DISCUSSION ITEMS: None. OTHER BUSINESS: Mr. Pouppirt discussed his concerns about how people attending the meeting needed to ring a bell to get in and the system may not work properly. He said that process was disruptive. Mr. Wilder suggested that they might be able to hire a security guard. Mr. Hogestad requested that a letter be written to express the Commission's concerns. He explained that the Commission as a whole felt that it was a bad situation. Commission members Ms. Aguilera, Ms. Ore, and Ms. Milewski also added that meetings that start earlier are a problem to get to on time. Ms. Tunner said that she would start meetings later, when there is a prior field trip. She also requested that the Design Review Sub -Committee meet to examine an historic door and window change at the Edaw Building at 250 E. Mountain. Mr. Wilder reported that Downtown River Corridor will be discussed April 6, 2000 including the historic resources in that area. Ms. Ore and Mr. Hogestad will attend the discussion. Ms. Tunner suggested they apply for State Historical Fund grants to survey the area. She explained that there are pressures of re -development on the River Corridor Area. The meeting adjourned 7:40 p.m. Minutes were transcribed from the tape of the meeting and submitted by Nicole Kaplan, Secretary.