Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 09/11/2002LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting September 11, 2002 Council Liaison: Eric Hamrick (225-2343) Staff Liaison: Joe Frank (221-6376) Commission Chairperson: Per Hogestad (416-7285) Summary: The LPC accepted for Final Review the landscape plan for 1745 Hoffman Mill Road, Nix Farm, the West Farmhouse, and designated 321 E. Mulberry, the Emily E. and J.M. Calvert House and Garage as a Local Landmark. They conceptually reviewed changes to the south and east doors to 200 Matthews Street, the Fort Collins Museum, and recommended approval of revisions to Chapter 14 of the City Code and the Land Use Code. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Called to order at 5:42 p.m. at 281 N. College Avenue. Angie Aguilera, Agnes Dix, W.J. "Bud" Frick, Per Hogestad, Janet Ore, Carole Stansfield and Myrne Watrous were present. Carol Tunner, Karen McWilliams and Joe Frank represented staff. GUESTS: Richard and Bessie Braesch, owners, and Laura Thompson for 321 E. Mulberry Street. Wendy Irving -Mills, City Operations Services, Jill Stilwell, Museum Director, for 200 Matthews Street, the Fort Collins Museum. AGENDA REVIEW: No Changes STAFF REPORTS: Ms. Tunner passed around a pamphlet on an upcoming conference; "Transformation of America, from Shingles to Columns". She also passed out and discussed a document on executive session guidelines. COMMISSION MEMBERS' REPORTS: Ms. Watrous attended the DDA meeting and said that the new port -a -lets have helped the downtown problems. None have been damaged or tipped over, and the number of citations has decreased significantly. The dead trees at the Remington Street garage will be removed. On the N. Mason Street project it has been determined that the 20 buildings there won't be any higher than 36 ft. Plans are in place to locate a new tea house there. The DDA had $249,000 encumbered for the Empire Hotel. This will now be unencumbered and made available for something else. CONSENT AGENDA: 1745 Hoffman Mill Road, Nix Farm — Final Review of Changed Landscape Plan Around the West Farmhouse (Doug Moore). Removed from Consent Agenda. Landmark Preservation Commissii • September 11, 2002 Meeting Minutes Page 2 Ms. Ore asked why they decided to move away from the wetlands to xeriscape? She was told that after reviewing the location of the sewer and water lines, they saw that they'd have to remove a tree and a few shrubs. City Code also says that they must keep at least 4 ft. away from wire lines. Motion: Ms. Ore moved that the LPC accept for final review the revised landscape plan for 1745 Hoffman Mill Road, Nix Farm, the West Farmhouse. Seconded by Ms. Dix, and approved unanimously, 7-0. DESIGNATION: 321 E. Mulberry, the Emily E. and J.M. Calvert House and Garage (Richard and Bessie Braesch and Laura Thompson). The owners of this property are interested in having it designated as a Fort Collins Landmark. It is currently listed on the National and State Registers of Historic Places as a contributing element of the Laurel School Historic District. The home is a modified example of an early cross -gabled vernacular wood frame dwelling in Fort Collins. It was constructed by contractor Charles A. Button, who constructed many homes and commercial buildings in the city. The garage dates to the period of significance, and contributes to the property's architectural character. The house has been fairly extensively remodeled. In 1925, the Sanborn Fire Insurance Company map indicates that the house had only a front porch, facing Mulberry Street. In 1931, Mrs. Christensen, the owner, acquired a building permit to remodel a bedroom. In 1941, Gilbert Betts remodeled a porch for $200. By 1948, the Assessor's records show that the front porch had been removed and the original entrance enclosed to create interior closet space. A new entrance was constructed on the west elevation, with a small hood over a concrete stoop. Windows on the east side were modified, and additional windows added. Also, a shed roof addition, measuring approximately 12x24 feet and a rear porch were built on the south elevation. All of these alterations occurred prior to 1948. Since that time, the hood over the entry door has been removed, and a chimney has been added to the west elevation. A covered wooden deck is now located at the rear of the house, presumably replacing the 1940s wood porch. Laura Thompson, the owner's daughter, and the home's occupant, provided some photographs of the property. The owners plan to restore the home as much as possible, retaining its historic value, while still allowing it to be functional. They are willing to move the front door back to its original location if the LPC wants. Originally, there were probably two front doors, as seen on the neighboring property. They will repair the foundation as needed, put the heating exhaust pipe back in the chimney, replace the metal windows, put in a wooden door, and restore the flatboard siding. On the south elevation, the gable will be modified so it is structurally sound, and the deck will be removed and replaced with something from the 1940's era. The east side needs the most work. The narrow window will be replaced and a beam put in, and a Landmark Preservation Commissio • September 11, 2002 Meeting Minutes Page 3 smaller window put in, as it was. Window design on the front of house will be copied on the sides. The barn will be restored to match the house, with low impact skylights, and the interior will be remodeled to become a living space. The foundation will be stabilized with a retaining wall and 2x4s. The owners are willing to restore the door as the LPC recommends. The owners feel that the house is historically significant because the builder arrived in 1895 and started building properties right away. It is important to keep his properties around. Ms. McWilliams said that if the LPC feels that the house is eligible, then it should be restored to how it was in the 1940's, or to an earlier documented time period. Mr. Frank said that the Children's Mercantile was approved for designation when the owners brought in plans. The LPC approved the designation subject to the plans that were brought in regarding its renovation. Members of the LPC replied that this would defy the LPC's own rules, which say that a property is designated based on how it is at the time of the designation. Also, with Children's Mercantile, it was 1/4 of a building. Mr. Hogestad said the question is "is it appropriate for designation." Ms. Ore said that they would need to know what are they going to take it back to. The LPC would need physical evidence about what they're taking back to. Mr. Hogestad said that the most significant piece is the front. Ms. Watrous has the inclination that the changes have not changed the basic shape of the house, and doesn't see a problem in designating this house. She said that she wishes more people would bring their houses to the LPC. Also, the garage is included in the designation, so an alley house couldn't be built there. Ms. Stansfield was glad to see the house's historic relationship with the Mosmans, whose home is on the National Register. Mr. Hogestad said that if the house is designatable, it would have to include the evolution of the work on the house. The Sanborn Map shows the detailing of the original porch. Ms. Ore said that the house is significant because of its relationship with Mr. Button, however this is a house that is really on the line. The integrity from when it was built to 1940 has been compromised. The location, setting, basic shape, and materials are probably from 1948. You can also see the seam from where they butted the old siding up to the new siding. The design has been compromised, and reflects 1948 workmanship. However, the house may show the evolution of architecture of Ft. Collins. Mr. Frick said that the work related to a contractor of the early century, though it does have additions that were done more than fifty years ago, save for the aluminum window on the east side. He said that, to him, it shows an evolution of how houses changed, up through our criteria time period. If the owners wanted to take it back to the original front porch, using adequate drawings, that type of restoration would be o.k. Landmark Preservation Commissio • September 11, 2002 Meeting Minutes Page 4 Mr. Hogestad said that he'd be willing to designate it. It does show an evolution, but not a great evolution. The Tudor revival porch is typical of the time period. Public Input: None Motion: Ms. Watrous moved that the LPC designate 321 E. Mulberry, the Emily E. and J.M. Calvert House and Garage as a Local Landmark. Seconded by Ms. Stansfield, and approved unanimously, 7-0. CURRENT REVIEW: 200 Matthews Street, Fort Collins Museum — Conceptual Review for Changing South and East Doors (Wendy Irving -Mills, City Operations Services, Jill Stilwell, Museum Director). Ms. Irving -Mills stated that in preparation for making the south entrance of the museum into the main entrance, they would like to change out the non -historic paired doors to ones with more glass. They would also like to change the east door that goes out into the parking lot. Both of these entrance doors (east and south) were installed in 1977 when the library became the museum, according to the applicant. The applicants came to discuss plans for the new doors conceptually with the LPC, and bring in final plans/drawings at a future meeting. Ms. Irving -Mills said that proportionally, the width of the glass is 1/2 of the width of the door, and the styles are t/4 the width of the door. In the main entrance, they might also want to address the exterior lighting. There are multiple different types of light fixtures there right now, with a gooseneck lamp currently hanging over the main entrance. On the south fagade, the doors will be changed to accommodate wheelchair access and the widths of the doors are now uneven. The narrower leaf is the one with glass in it. The lights located here, at the corners of the pediment, are modern security lights and come on in the evenings. The LPC asked if there will be all new doors on the south side, or if some would remain. They were informed that they will both be replaced by wood doors. A sketch was supplied of what they are currently considering. They plan to paint the exterior, and stain and varnish the interior face, like the west side entrance is currently. They think that the original doors were probably not painted, but were stained. However, they could have been painted. The west doors will stay the same, becoming an emergency door. Signage directing to the new entrance will be at the bottom of the steps, and the area will be landscaped. They will take care not to change anything structural, as that west door could one day be used as an entrance again. The east door, with alcove and hardware in it, used to be a window. When the building was remodeled to become a museum, it became a doorway. The proposed door might have arch -top windows placed in the frame, with a rectangular door. They could have Landmark Preservation Commisso • September 11, 2002 Meeting Minutes Page 5 clear glass in the transom section, and spandrel glass above so the wiring and so forth would not be visible. Mr. Frick asked if they plan to pull out this door from the alcove. He was told yes. There is a fairly level area in front of the door. They could put spandrel glass above the door, just in the arch, and pull the door up, and keep the handicapped access more at street level. Ms. Dix asked if there are photographs of the original door on the south side. She was told that they don't have any close up photos, where you can see the detail in that door. The LPC said they liked the idea of placing light fixtures in the recess above the south doors, instead of gooseneck lights. It is all solid stone in there, though, which may make location of the lighting difficult. Ms. Ore said she liked Mr. Frick's idea for the door. DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1) Revisions to LPC Bylaws (Ms. Tunner, Historic Preservation Planner) Ms. Tunner related that there are some conflicts with the City Code and the Boards and Commissions Bylaws, and these cannot conflict. The Code has a lot more information and not all of it is in the Bylaws. The Bylaws are supposed to be in addition to the Code. The new addition, which was handed out, takes out whatever is covered in the Code, leaves in the needed additional information, and does not conflict with the Code. Mr. Frank also said that Bylaws are not actually required. Mr. Frick asked if the LPC can we get rid of the Bylaws and just have rules for the LPC? Mr. Frank said that this was not possible, that all rules need to be in the form of bylaws. Now, if changes are made to the Code, the LPC won't need to change the Bylaws. All the things that were taken out are covered by the Code. Motion: Ms. Ore moved that the LPC approve the revisions to the LPC Bylaws as presented in this meeting. Seconded by Ms. Dix, and approved unanimously, 7-0. 2) Changes to Chapter 14 of City Code and to the Land Use Code (Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner). Issues to be discussed: • Should the LPC use the National Register designation criteria or current Ft. Collins criteria? National Register criteria is usually what is used, and covers everything. The LPC will use the National Register criteria A, B, and C. The LPC did not determine whether or not to include Criterion D, the archeological 'Landmark Preservation Commissiill'r • September 11, 2002 Meeting Minutes Page 6 piece, in the designation standards. More information will be brought before the LPC on this matter. • Staff reviewed the proposed code changes. If adopted, demolition of a contributing property would not be reviewed. If it's contributing then it is not reviewed, but if it's individually eligible then it is reviewed. Under the current code the LPC cannot stop demolition of these buildings. An LPC review is just a delaying mechanism. This would still be true under the revised code. The Commission debated the merits of requiring full review of all demolition. The issue that all buildings to be demolished must go through the full process, was voted on, and was defeated, 6-1. • Review of paint color. The proposed code states that paint color would only be reviewed for properties in the Old Town District, as color does not affect the building itself, and is just an issue of taste. This issue went to a vote. Mr. Frick, Ms. Watrous, Ms. Stansfield and Ms. Dix voted to keep paint color in as an aspect that the LPC reviews and that the code not be changed. The motion passed, 4-3. • Demolition by neglect of non -designated structures. The new code does not provide for this. It is rare for cities to have this, hard to define, and hard to enforce. This will not be affected by the proposed revisions. • Demolition of a structure for a parking lot or vacant ground. This needs more research — can a parking lot be covered under a development plan? This will not be affected by the proposed revisions. • Can/should the LPC designate properties that are not individually eligible, but only contributing? This would allow for two tiers of designation: as a contributing property and as an eligible property. This should be looked at on a case by case basis and won't be changed in the Code. Could a map of potential districts be generated to help with such decisions? The LPC would like to encourage people to bring their properties in to be considered for designation, and something like this might help. • Who determines if a building is eligible, and at what level? Landmark Preservation Commission makes the formal Determination of Eligibility for designations; eligibility, and the level of eligibility is a joint Director of Advanced Planning/Landmark Preservation Commission Chair decision for demolition/alteration reviews — if there is disagreement, then it goes before the LPC. • Can someone who is not the owner of a property request a DOE? This happens frequently, especially when someone is planning on buying a property and wants it designated. The first step is to notify the property owners. This will be left as is in the Code. Landmark Preservation Commissidlt" • September 11, 2002 Meeting Minutes Page 7 • Should there be time limits on decisions? The LPC can decide that a property is eligible or not eligible, but how long should this decision stand? There was a recommendation that decisions be linked to the building permits time limits. Those applicants have 6 months to do the work, or they must have a good reason to keep extending the permit. The LPC suggested limiting decisions in time to 1 year. Any approved work must take place within a year, with two six- month extensions possible. Also, buildings that are not eligible today may be eligible in ten years. Staff will look into the legalities of making this change. • Should the LPC adopt the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for signs (Section 14-49)? Sign review included the Secretary of the Interior's Standards as well as the guidelines that the LPC currently uses. The Secretary's Standards apply to signs, treating them as just one more element, but there is not anything specific to signs. Additional standards were not found to be necessary. The next step is for staff to make the minor modifications and for possible focus groups, including historic interest groups, builders association, and property owners. OTHER BUSINESS: None Meeting adjourned: 7:59 Minutes