HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 10/14/1998LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
October 14, 1998
Council Liaison: Scott Mason (226-4824)
Staff Liaison: Joe Frank
Commission Chairperson: Per Hogestad (303-292-1875)
SUMMARY OF MEETING: The 200 Linden Street project to shorten the facade
canopy was approved on the consent agenda. 630 Peterson was designated
as a local landmark. The Commission discussed the architecture of 140 North
McKinley and 209 S. Sherwood and whether they considered eligible for
designation. The LPC approved Steve Slezak, contractor, for the pre -qualified
list of design professionals for the Design Assistance Program. The LPC did
not approve the proposed windows for the J. C. Beers Barn, at 311 Whedbee
because they were not compatible with the historic barn. Matt Baker from the
City Engineer's Office presented road widening plans for County Road 11 and
Harmony Road.
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Per Hogestad called the meeting to order at
5:35 p.m., at 281 North College Avenue. Commission members James Tanner, Angela
Milewski, Janet Ore, Rande Pouppirt and Angie Aguilera were present. Joe Frank,
Carol Tunner and Karen McWilliams represented staff.
GUESTS: Retha Luttrell, homeowner, 630 Peterson; Jordan Radin, homeowner, 140 N.
McKinley; Steve Slezak, applicant as a pre -qualified design professional with the
Design Assistance Program; John Gless, owner, 311 Whedbee, the J. C. Beers Barn;
Bob Blanchard, Director of Current Planning; Matt Baker, Cam McNair, and Eileen
Salamon, City Engineer's Office, for road widening projects; Scott Griffin, for the road
widening impact, at 2600 S. County Road 11, Cal Johnson/Henry Jessup Farm.
AGENDA REVIEW: None.
STAFF REPORTS: Ms. Tunner asked if there were any more nominations for the
statewide endangered places list. There were none. She mentioned that the Historic
Fort Collins Development Corporation nominated the Northern Hotel. Ms. Tunner
provided the current data for the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. She also handed out
training information entitled Tips for Successful Commissions. Mr. Frank announced
that George Lyons was resigning from the Commission because he is working out-of-
town and can't attend meetings.
COMMISSION MEMBERS' REPORTS: None.
Landmark Preservation Commi, n
October 14, 1998 Meeting
Page 2
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Tanner moved to accept the August 26, 1998 LPC
meeting minutes as submitted. Ms. Aguilera seconded the motion, which passed
unanimously. (6-0)
CONSENT AGENDA:
200 Linden Street, Wright Life — Demolition of Overhanging Canopy (Vernon
Construction)
Mr. Tanner moved approval of the 200 Linden Street project on the consent
agenda. Ms. Aguilera seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. (6-0)
DESIGNATION:
630 Peterson (Randall and Retha Luttrell)
Ms. McWilliams explained that the Addle R. Debolt House was built in 1905 or 1906
and was an attractive and interesting example of Queen Anne architecture. It has an
irregular floor plan and projecting polygonal wings. There is also a bellcast hip and
gable roof, with decorative shingles under the gable ends, and semicircular arched attic
windows. It was being designated for it's architectural importance. A 1948 photograph
showed the enclosed porch, which was not original, but is more than fifty years old.
Other than the non -original wrought -iron railings leading to the entryway, there were no
other additions or alterations. Mr. Pouppirt asked if the siding was original.
Mr. Tanner moved to approve the request for local landmark designation of the
Addle R. Debolt House at 630 Peterson. Ms. Ore seconded the motion, which
passed unanimously. (6-0)
DETERMINATIONS OF ELIGIBILITY FOR ARCHITECTURAL IMPORTANCE:
140 North McKinley (Jordan Radin)
Ms. McWilliams explained that the owner would like to find out if the house was
architecturally important. In addition, there was no time to conduct thorough research
on its historical importance. A photo and the information that they did have, showed
that there was hood on the house was not original, but it has since been removed. The
garage was original. Mr. Pouppirt asked if there were steel or wood windows and they
are wood. Mr. Hogestad asked about the vent in the gable of the garage and added
that the garage was pretty elaborate. The Commission agreed that it was not an
uncommon housing style, but was an unusual size garage. Mr. Radin, the homeowner
thought that it was built in 1945. Mr. Hogestad asked about the interior features. Mr.
Radin described the mailbox as a slot hole right into the house, floor vents, arched
entryways and mudrooms on both the front and back of the house. Mr. Hogestad
asked if the walls were smooth or textured. Mr. Radin said they were pretty smooth.
Mr. Hogestad said that this garage was probably one of the first of the attached kind.
Ms. Aguilera commented on the rear hood over the porch and the metal materials. Mr.
Landmark Preservation Clmission •
October 14, 1998 Meeting
Page 3
Tanner said that there were a number of little houses around town with boxed
entrances. Mr. Tanner added that there have been efforts to designate modest
bungalows. These newer ones were better built and are more likely to be added on
because they have better foundations, designations would help to keep them appear
the way they are. Mr. Hogestad and Ms. Ore agreed. Ms. Ore commented that the
owner should never feel that the house was not as good as a Queen Anne. Mr.
Hogestad pointed out that the garage was attached, which makes it pretty unusual.
209 South Sherwood (Elizabeth Manse)
Ms. McWilliams explained that fairly substantial alterations have been made to the back
of the house, so she brought this property in for the LPC's opinion. The addition was
not very visible from the street. Ms. Tunner added that the porch railing was new. Ms.
McWilliams explained that the owner would like to remove the aluminum siding, as well
as the exterior stairs leading to the second level. She was also interested in screening
in the front porch, which would require them to change the framing structure. Ms. Ore
asked why the owner was interested in designating if she was interested in making so
many changes. Ms. McWilliams said that she was interested in using programs such
as State Tax Credit. Ms. Tunner added that the Secretary of the Interior's Standards do
allow screened in porches, as long as they are recessed and you can still read the
original porch lines. Ms. Tunner pointed out the original beadboard and boxed in eaves
on the house. Mr. Frank discussed the issue of designating a house, which currently
has aluminum siding. Mr. Tanner explained, in the past, after the aluminum siding was
removed, then they would designate. The Commission does not recommended
designation based on what could be, be what is. Ms. McWilliams added that they have
no recourse and the City Attorney said that they could not establish conditions for
designation.
Mr. Tanner asked when the addition was added. Ms. McWilliams showed a slide of the
house and pointed out the rear first floor, which was either original or a very early
addition and then the second floor addition, which was less than fifty years olds. She
speculated that the second floor, rear addition was probably completed in the 1960s.
Ms. Ore said that the addition really compromised the shape and roofline of the
structure. Ms. Milewski said that with aluminum siding they could not consider the
house for designation, but when the siding was removed they could re-examine it. Mr.
Hogestad said that they do allow additions to make this house move livable. Once they
remove the aluminum siding they could look at it in the context of the street elevation.
Ms. Milewski added that the addition was not visible from the rear, but with the siding
they could not designate it at this time. Mr. Hogestad pointed out that the addition had
a shed roof and smaller windows, which were typical of earlier additions. Ms. Ore
argued that the form of the building and roofline had been altered and they needed to
look at the Secretary of the Interior's Standards regarding this case. Mr. Tanner asked
his fellow Commission members if they had removed the stairs, railing and siding,
would they then consider it for designation. Ms. Milewski would advise the applicant the
screened in porch would have to be done sensitively. Ms. Ore said that she would look
at it with the siding off, but with concerns about the addition.
Landmark Preservation Commi. n v
October 14, 1998 Meeting
Page 4
Ms. Tunner pointed out the exposed rafters on the porch and addition, the stone
foundation and the horse tie-up in the front. She thought that maybe it was an original
farmhouse on the block. Mr. Franks said that the structure was very close to the city
center, so he thought it maybe part of a subdivision and not a farmhouse. Ms.
McWilliams concluded that once its history is researched, the applicant might come
back with more information.
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
Ms. Tunner reviewed slides of the restoration work that Mr. Slezak has done. He
explained his experience while rebuilding a parapet at 236 Linden Street. The parapet
was falling down, so they rebuilt it out of wood, which was rejected by the Park Service.
So, they matched the brick with an old brick from a demolished building in Loveland.
Then they sliced the brick and adhered it with epoxy, to rebuild it. They stripped the
paint off the brick of the entire building. They built new kick plates with boxcar siding
and noted that the original building had a very simple design. He added that they spent
a lot of time researching, while rebuilding the front fagade. He added that other than
changes to the center entrance, it is historically accurate.
Another project, which the LPC reviewed was 205 South Meldrum, completed in 1985.
Mr. Slezak described the repairs made to the structure. Ms. Tunner added that a very
sensitive addition was made to the rear of the building. Mr. Slezak added that his
current office is at the corner of Howes and Olive. He would like to designate the
building and do a complete rehabilitation. Mr. Slezak is familiar with the standards and
guidelines and is good with specifications and details. He said that he has served on
the Downtown Development Authority for seven years. He was involved with the work
on the Linden Hotel and was part of the D.D.A. final review team on that project.
Mr. Tanner asked about his plans for his office on Olive. Mr. Slezak said that building
needs work on the rear, the gutters have rusted through and the fascia and crown
molding have been damaged. Mr. Hogestad asked if he would remove the stucco. Mr.
Slezak said no and explained that he can not verify that the building was just brick with
the research he has conducted. He did submit a request for a demolition permit for the
garage. He wanted to build a carriage house in the character and style of the house.
Ms. Ore asked if he had done any preservation work since the eighties. Mr. Slezak said
that he recently worked on a building two doors down, the Good House.
Mr. Pouppirt moved that Steve Slezak be pre -qualified in the Design Assistance
Program under the Construction Contractors category. Ms. Aguilera seconded
the motion, which passed unanimously. (6-0)
311 Whedbee, J. C. Beers Barn — Adding Daylighting Glass Block to the North
Elevation (John Gless)
Landmark Preservation Connission •
October 14, 1998 Meeting
Page 5
Ms. Tunner said that Mr. Glass, the applicant, used the Design Assistance Program to
do renovation work on the barn, but he did not receive a Local Landmark Rehabilitation
Grant last year. She explained that he now wants windows on the north side of the
building that the Design Review Sub -Committee met at last Friday. Mr. Gless said that
the neighbor's barn is less then two and one-half feet away. He has already removed
the trim and siding in preparation for inserting windows. He explained that the new
windows on the south and east side have changed the light in the barn, but he would
like more light from the north. He proposed a discontinuous row of glass blocks,
centered between the stud cavities. The top of the blocks would be almost even with
the bottom of the eave. Commission members explained to him that glass block was
not an appropriate material. To mitigate that, he planned to set the block inside the trim
and siding, so it would be recessed. A single pane of glass would be installed on the
exterior and trimmed out with barn wood to make the block less visible.
Mr. Tanner asked if the block was being used because it was an issue of cost. Mr.
Gless explained that he does not need operable window openings. He described the
look on the inside as bam-like and rustic with some drywall. Mr. Pouppirt asked why he
doesn't use the same windows, which appeared on the south elevation. Mr. Gless said
that the only view out the north was the sheet metal roof of the barn next door, but it
does reflect a lot of light. So, he doesn't really want windows or the added expense.
The Commission discussed at what point it doesn't look like a barn anymore because
there are too many windows. Mr., Gless said that the glass blocks would be hidden
under the eaves and would be trimmed out like the rest of the structure. Mr. Hogestad
said that this seemed like a very contemporary solution, and it resembled a ribbon
window. He suggested that a greater amount of space go between the blocks. Mr.
Tanner suggested that maybe there was a more sensitive solution to get the same
amount of light, without so much alteration to the building.
Then Mr. Gless presented plans for a second option that was still glass block, but with
more space between the block units. Mr. Gless had come up with this design in
response to Mr. Hogestad's comments on -site with the Design Review Sub -Committee.
Mr. Hogestad said that the 1.5 inch trim was much more contemporary than the
windows on the south side, which probably had a 2.5 inch trim. He talked about
proportions and said that the blocks were long and narrow. Maybe there was some way
to stack them to create squares. Mr. Gless said that would not work well on the inside.
The Commission agreed that the windows on the south side were more in keeping with
the character of a barn and more in proportion. Mr. Pouppirt did not like the repetitive
design and suggested a continuous line of glass with a glass stop, almost so you don't
see it. Mr. Hogestad thought that was foreign to the vocabulary of a barn. Ms. Milewski
asked if the glass block were in a different shape, if that would really make a difference.
Mr. Tanner said that he was concerned with both the shape and material. Mr. Glass
explained that there are barns with openings under the eaves for ventilation. Mr. Frank
asked if he had considered skylights. Mr. Gless said that skylights would not reflect
enough light and would probably cost a lot more. Mr. Hogestad said that if this was for
State Tax Credit they ought to run it by the State and get some comments back.
Landmark Preservation Commk ,n
October 14, 1998 Meeting
Page 6
Mr. Pouppirt moved to deny the window scheme A and B for their incompatibility
with the barn structure, according to the Secretary of the Interior's Standard #9
that addresses incompatible materials and the historic character of the building.
Mr. Tanner seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. (6-0)
The Commission told the applicant to consider proportions, shape and materials. Only
some members felt that glass block may be okay. Ms. Ore suggested that he look into
prismatic glass, which was used in storefronts.
2600 S. County Road 11, Cal Johnson/Henry Jessup Farm — Road Widening
Impact
Ms. McWilliams said that the last time that the LPC met on this issue, they requested
information on existing farm complexes in the urban growth area. She reported that the
urban growth area is seven square miles and according to a reconnaissance level
survey there are 60 farmhouses and 18 of which are associated with a barn or some
other outbuilding. Ms. McWilliams showed slides of the farmhouse and barn that were
being discussed. Mr. Matt Baker, from the City's Engineering Department, presented
the road widening project and showed an aerial photograph of the site, with the road
alignment including six lanes of traffic, tuming lanes and the median penciled in. The
plan had 141 feet across at a minimum and 4500 to 5500 cars were expected to travel
the arterial street everyday. He presented the ultimate plan, which had double left turn
lanes. Mr. Baker explained that they were limited in where the road could go because
the Meadows PUD already existed on the southwest comer. They did shift the lanes
as far west as they could and they even planned attached sidewalks to squeeze the
road in there. Mr. Pouppirt discussed the utility easement and the detention pond. Mr.
Baker said that they needed to plan for a gentle curve because of the high speeds on
that road. Mr. Baker said that from the curb to the porch with attached sidewalks would
be fifteen to seventeen feet past the big row of trees. Mr. Frank asked how long the
right turn lane had to be.
The Commission discussed the big row of trees that sit in front of the house. Mr. Baker
said that they could save the trees by putting them in the median. Ms. Milewski noted
that the trees sit low and asked if they could drop the road in order to keep the trees.
Mr. Frank asked what kind of mitigation would they create for the house. Mr. Baker
explained that the developer had expressed an interest in moving the house and the
outbuildings to an interior part of the site. Ms. Ore asked why the road had to be so
large. Mr. Baker explained that the road was planned with the use of ten percent
alternative transportation in mind by the year 2015. Mr. Frank said that room was made
on the road for bikes and buses as well. Mr. Hogestad asked if they could move the
farmhouse back by fifteen to twenty feet. Mr. Baker explained that they have not come
up with a mitigation plan for the house and that he was present to discuss the impact of
the road. Mr. Tanner expressed a preference to see the house moved to the center of
the development and to set up a sense of a farmstead away from a major arterial
corner. He added that even if the structure was moved back, the appreciation of a
farmstead would be lost because of what was going on around it. Mr. Hogestad said
that he would rather them move one building than the entire site. Mr. Pouppirt liked the
Landmark Preservation Commission •
October 14, 1998 Meeting
Page 7
developers' ideas, and they should salvage the image of the farmstead and do the best
that they can with the existing trees. Ms. Ore argued that the moved site would not be
historic anymore. Ms. Ore added that the saved five or six trees would be a last
commemoration that a farm was on that comer. Mr. Hogestad asked how far back they
would have to move the trees in order to save the farmhouse. Mr. Baker said forty-five
to fifty feet and the trees would be in the median. Mr. Hogestad asked about planting
new trees. Two to three inch caliper trees would be planted. Ms. Aguilera asked how
long the existing trees have to live. Mr. Tanner said that a lot more people would be
upset about the trees than moving the house. Mr. Hogestad asked when they would
assess the trees, in order to come up with a mitigation value and to determine just how
much longer they would live. Mr. Baker explained that they do it when they go into the
final design process and that Tim Buchanan has already done a walk through. Ms.
Milewski stated that they should not make assumptions about the life of the trees right
now. Ms. Ore asked when the road reached six lanes if they would lose the trees
anyway. Mr. Baker said that it depended on the configuration and that they could stay
in a separate median for the long term. Ms. Tunner suggested to the Commission that
they look at the significance of the resource while discussing the trees versus the
house. Mr. Tanner said that they still needed to move the farmhouse and they would
have done something to the farm site, which alters it significantly. He said that it would
be more accessible to more people at another site, instead of a major intersection.
Scott Griffin, developer representative, said that they could re -locate the buildings and
preserve the idea of a farmstead. If it were left there, then there would be an argument
over its use, the structure could be altered, and a parking lot would need to be added.
He added that they are trying to create the sense of a farm community throughout the
development. Mr. Hogestad said that he would like to see a study of the trees and a
mitigation plan exploring where the house could be moved on site and still
accommodate the ultimate roadway. Ms. Milewski asked how large of a site was
planned for the community center. They were planning in the three to four acre range.
2024 Harmony Road, Harmony Gas Station and General Store — Road Widening
Impact
Ms. Milewski declared a conflict of interest and left the meeting room. Ms. McWilliams
said that Staff had spoken with the Engineering Department regarding the "Harmony
Corner' and made suggestions because it is a very significant intersection in the City's
history. In option B, they were considering moving the gas station, garage and house in
the same configuration to the property next door. Ms. McWilliams explained that the
building started as a store, then became a gas station. The owner said that he would
prefer to live in the house next door. When moved the structures would have the same
relationship to the comer and the newer home was in better condition. Mr. Baker said
that they had tried to shift the road to the east, but it would have impacted the Harmony
School and the cost increased. He did show a cross section of that proposal.
The Commission and Mr. Baker discussed the streetscape and landscape design along
Harmony Road. He explained that there would be lots of development along Harmony
and they needed to tell developers how much right-of-way room they needed to leave.
Mr. Baker explained that when moved, the gas station would have the same entrance
Landmark Preservation Commi. ,n
October 14, 1998 Meeting
Page 8
and access to the road. Mr. Ore said that when the buildings were moved they would
no longer be eligible. Ms. McWilliams explained that if they were designated prior to the
move, they would retain their eligibility. Mr. Frank explained that it would meet their
local goals, but would not be eligible nationally. Mr. Hogestad asked what would
happen to the grade. Ms. McWilliams explained that the gas station was originally the
same level as the road. Mr. Hogestad asked if the new site was still behind the existing
ditch. Ms. Ore discussed tearing down the owner's current home and moving into the
Franz home next door. Ms. McWilliams said that the Franz home was actually more
significant. Ms. Ore did not like having to tear down one historic home to keep another,
but recognized that they needed to make a compromise that has no easy decisions.
Ms. Tunner said that she would like to see some interpretation in the future to portray
that this was the "Harmony Center." The Commission asked if the owner was willing to
designate - they did not know. Mr. Hogestad said that there needed to be more
discussion with the owner.
Mr. Tanner moved that the LPC support the kind of concept expressed in Option
B or other similar arrangement that maintains the historic integrity of the gas
station and garage. Mr. Pouppirt seconded the motion, which passed
unanimously. (5-0)
Mr. Tanner commented that if the City funds the relocation of the buildings, it should be
designated and preserved because it would act as an incentive.
OTHER BUSINESS: None.
The meeting adjourned 8:45 p.m.
Submitted by Nicole Sneider, Secretary