Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 08/28/2002LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting August 28, 2002 Minutes Council Liaison: Eric Hamrick (225-2343) Staff Liaison: Joe Frank (221-6376) Commission Chairperson: Per Hogestad (416-7285) Summary: The LPC heard a conceptual review of a change to entrance paving at the Avery Carriage House, 107 N. Meldrum, and they recommended staff administrative final review. The Design Assistance Program LPC sub -committee reported back on plans to re -certify the pre -qualified consultants for the program. The LPC voted to write a letter of support for a State Historical Fund grant for restoration of the Romero House at 425 Tenth St., and discussed changes to the Ft. Collins Code, Chapter 14, Landmark Preservation. The architect and developer of the Young's Pasture project adjacent to the Sheely Drive neighborhood presented changes to conceptual plans that the LPC had reviewed previously. The LPC recommended the final approval for the deck at the West Farm House of the Nix Farm be done by staff administratively. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Meeting was called to order by Per Hogestad at 5:35 p.m., 281 N. College Ave. Commission members Angie Aguilera, Agnes Dix, W.J. "Bud" Frick, Per Hogestad, Janet Ore, Carole Stansfield, and Myrne Watrous were present. Carol Tunner and Karen McWilliams represented staff. GUESTS: Jim Tanner for proposed changes to the Ft. Collins Code. For the Young's Pasture development plans: Reuel and Donna Rolston, Deborah and Jack Applin, Richard and Jan DeVore, Per and Veda Hogestad, Eleanor Diehl, Pat Wilkins -Wells, Pauline Puleston, Bob and Jana Brandes, Steve Olt, City Planner, Joe Vigil, Ray Kramer, architect, JJ Shane and Ron Grace, developers for the project. Steve Lukowski for 107 N. Meldrum, Avery Carriage House. Chris Koziol and Betty Aragon of the Poudre Landmarks Foundation, for the Romero House. AGENDA REVIEW: Additions to Other Business: 1. Discussion on the decision made during the Ft. Collins High School meeting in Pueblo earlier in the day. 2. Discussion on the deck design for the west farmhouse at the Nix Farm. STAFF REPORTS: 1) Ms. Tunner: First Baptist Church, 328 Remington St. Their building permit was held up because of uncertainties about whether an elevator is required for the building. The decision has been made by the Building Inspection Department that the building needs to be handicapped accessible. A handicapped accessible ramp will be placed in the back of the building, and no interior elevator will be required. The ramp design will have to come before the LPC. Landmark Preservation Commissiop • August 28, 2002 Meeting Minutes Page 2 2) A Northern Hotel fire escape is located over the top of the building to the south. This building's owner cannot get insurance because the fire escape constitutes a danger that is climbable. Removal of the fire escape may be coming before the LPC. COMMISSION MEMBER REPORTS: None. Approval of August 14, 2002 Minutes. August 14 minutes approved with no changes. CURRENT REVIEW: 107 N. Meldrum, Avery Carriage House — Paving at the entrance, Conceptual/Final Review (Steve Lukowski, Crew Chief for City Parks and Recreation). While driving by the Avery Carriage House, Ms. Tunner noticed that the Parks Department for the City was installing interlocking pavers at the entrance to the Carriage House. The area is a landscape problem and awash when it rains, so they wanted a more stable surface where the path turns to go north into the carriage house. The building is a landmark district and changes on the site need LPC review. Photos were handed around. Mr. Lukowski agreed that the work that has been done is not satisfactory, and they would like to get input from the LPC before proceeding. They are open to alternatives. It is probably not possible to grow grass in that area. They would like to put in flagstone to match the shape of the hill. Mr. Frick suggested that they could put in a 45-degree corner of concrete. The grade as it is now was built up beneath the sidewalk. It was graded so the house would be handicapped accessible. A new concrete sidewalk is already there, so more concrete would be acceptable. Mr. Lukowski suggested they could also plant shrubs in that area. They would have to be low growing, so as not to interfere with the view of the home. The applicant will remove the pavers that were put in there and compact the ground in readiness for a new material. It was decided that if he chooses concrete, the final review can be done administratively by staff. DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1) Design Assistance Program Sub -Committee Reports on Re -certifying the Pre -qualified Consultants. Ms. Aguilera and Ms. Ore met with staff, Ms. Tunner, to formulate some new guidelines for inclusion on the Design Assistance Program list of consultants. A set of proposed steps was presented to the LPC for discussion. The five proposed steps described what the LPC had discussed on this matter. An informative letter will be used to explain to the consultants what the LPC expects from them. The guidelines also allow for designers to be removed from the list if they do not consistently adhere to the Standards and educate their clients on compatible historic preservation design. Landmark Preservation Commission • August 28, 2002 Meeting Minutes Page 3 People who have been accepted into the program during calendar year 2002 need not reapply. Others on the list will be asked if they still want to be on it. If so, they will need to reapply and be interviewed. The interview process will be more rigorous than it has been in the past, giving the applicants scenarios and asking for their responses, among other things. The designers also need to be aware that every time they come before the LPC they will be expected to have adhered to the Secretary's Standards, regardless of whether or not they are working under the Design Assistance Program at the time. Public input: None. The LPC was concerned that the initial letter be well written and coherent. It also should be made clear what kind of training, besides watching the video, will the applicants be asked to complete. Staff asked that the subcommittee work with her on the letters. 2) Letter of Support for SHF Grant for the Romero House (Chris Koziol of CSU's Architectural Preservation Institute, Betty Aragon of the Poudre Landmarks Foundation). An update was given on the Romero House. In addition to the research done on the home itself, the Poudre Landmarks Foundation (PLF) is also hoping to conduct oral histories of older residents of the area. They have almost completed an architectural assessment grant, which they received. They will be using ground -penetrating radar and the information will be used for restoration. The PLF has discussed how to best treat the Romero House. They have discussed leaving it as it is to interpret it over time, or taking the house down to its original adobe form of four rooms, and placing an additional structure on the property to hold exhibits. After a vote, they decided to restore it to the original adobe building. Ms. Aragon said it has been a dream come true to be able to work with the Romero House, and the PLF is working hard to bring it together. This will give long overdue recognition to the Hispanic community which helped Ft. Collins flourish. The home, built of adobe in 1927, shows Romero's pride in his home and community. It will be the first historically exhibited adobe house in Northern Colorado, and will be one of the only sites that interprets the relationship with the sugar beet industry. Public input: Mr. Jim Tanner related that he moved to Northern Colorado in 1970 and was amazed when he saw a little ad saying, "What insurance do you have against sugar beet maggots?" This showed him how important the sugar beet industry was in this area. Landmark Preservation Commissiop • August 28, 2002 Meeting Minutes Page 4 Chris Koziol informed the Commission that frame additions were added in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s. Their work plan will fully document all work. They will be able to interpret the accretions over the time period going back to the 1930s and 40s. The 1935 material will stay, as well as the 1927 structure. All other additions were done after the mid 1950s, and will be removed. The PLF also wants to incorporate what they have learned into the school curriculum in the area. Until the 1960s, there was no plumbing. Removing the later additions will help the public to really understand the earlier time periods. Because of this, they believe that the four -room structure has more interpretive power. Ms. Watrous asked if it was designated as it is now, or just as the earlier structure. She was told that it was designated in its current state, but alterations for restoration are allowable because of its unique situation as a historic home that has been covered over. The PLF must be sure that their work meets all the Secretary's Standards. All plans for removing of the materials will come before the LPC before it is done. Regarding the letter of support that has been requested of the LPC, it is unusual that the PLF will ask for support to do something that the LPC hasn't approved the design yet. However, because of the importance of the project and the care that the PLF is taking, the LPC is willing to write a letter of support. This will have to go for State review as well as LPC review. Public input: None. Motion: Ms. Aguilera moved that the LPC write a letter of support for SHF grant for the Romero House. Seconded by Mr. Frick and approved unanimously, 7-0. 3) Changes to Ft. Collins Code, Chapter 14, Landmark Preservation. Changes would be made to the Ft. Collins Code which would address some of the issues that the LPC has been concerned about, especially the Demolition/Alteration Review Process. They would also make some necessary clarifications, and will help to keep language consistent throughout the Code. Also, staff is proposing to change the code to include the National Register's seven aspects of integrity, which have not been included in the past. These changes have not yet gone through the City Attorney or Advance Planning Director, and further changes may be made by them. This is not the final draft. Staff asked the LPC to think about whether they wish to include archeology as one of their concerns. Staff will return with additional information on this topic. Another issue is the review of color. The Commission voted 4-3 to retain the review of color. The Commission was informed that the Deputy City Attorney believes that proposed land surface changes (terraces, detention ponds) should Landmark Preservation Commissiop • August 28, 2002 Meeting Minutes Page 5 be reviewed by the LPC, but changes in vegetation will not be reviewed. The Commission voted 7-0 that the Secretary of Interior's Standards be included under Section 14-48. These issues will come back before the LPC in about six weeks. Any additional comments or concerns that the LPC has should be brought to staff as they are realized, not just at the end of the 6 weeks. It was asked if it is appropriate that there are no time limits mentioned in the Code for the demolition alteration review process approvals. The Commission thought that a 1 year or 18 month limit should be enacted. The LPC members had other questions, and this discussion will be revisited in Other Business, after the Young's Pasture item. Public input: None. 4) Young's Pasture — Proposed Development Adjacent to Historic District. Complimentary Review (Joe Vigil, Ray Kramer, Ron Grace). Mr. Hogestad declared a conflict of interest and excused himself from the discussion. Karen McWilliams presented the staff report. She described and showed slides of some of the design characteristics of the Sheely Drive Local Landmark District. This was the first neighborhood to break away from the standard grid pattern, incorporating open spaces and curving roads. The landscape design was also planned around the existing terrain. The homes in the neighborhood are also High Style Ranch architecture, with the emphasis on the family living spaces inside the houses and at the rear of the buildings, not on the front. The homes also show an emphasis on automobiles. Many porches were made by overhanging the roof. Other details include comer windows, a variety of brick types, glass block, stone, large expanses of glass, sun -screening devices, and large fireplaces. These were all custom designed houses and some new things were tried in the neighborhood. For instance, there are no curbs or gutters to separate the houses from street, and no streetlights. Each home had a small front yard lamp. Many of the houses are one story in the front, but two stories in the back. The houses had low pitch roofs, lots of windows, and had overhanging eaves. This area is important in both its architectural and historical significance to Ff. Collins. Mr. Kramer informed the Commission of the status of the project. On Sept. 13, 2000 the developer made his initial presentation to the LPC and the Sheely neighborhood. Originally, they planned to build 22 units. This land is zoned MNM, with a minimum density of 20 units on a site. The density of the Sheely neighborhood is probably about 2 houses per acre. A set of guidelines was handed out, which describes how the developers plan to relate the new buildings to the site, the importance of horizontal elements, wall plane elements, material types, and an emphasis on the first floor. The plans have changed and the Landmark Preservation Commission • August 28, 2002 Meeting Minutes Page 6 developer is now planning to build 20 units -- 2 units less than previously planned. There will be two fourplexes on either end. Because of City Plan, they cannot all be single-family homes. The interior units show their use of the guidelines, and a private drive has been incorporated. This has been necessary to allow Fire Department vehicles to have access to Prospect Avenue. The developer has planned that the upper stories will be stucco, but it has been pointed out that there was little or no stucco in the original home designs. Board and batten materials were suggested, but perhaps stucco can be used in limited amounts as a transitional material. Several single-family homes have been planned, though changes have been made to the original design so they will fit on the site. The City has a requirement for a utility lane to be put in for service to the houses. The designers are still trying to use the guidelines, with fireplaces, different planes, use of windows, and walls made into exterior features. Some grade changes will be required, where they will try to use site walls. For the designs of the different units they would prefer to have some similarity, but also some variety in the four single-family homes and mother-in-law units. Ms. Watrous asked if these are going to be condos or rentals. She was told that they will be individually owned condos. Ms. Ore asked how close the buildings will be to the existing buildings in the neighborhood. It is hard to see on the map where the boundaries are between the proposed buildings and the existing neighborhood houses. She also wanted to know if they did a topographical review with City Staff. When you are looking out of the one-story room of the Sheely neighborhood, it seems that you'll be looking right into the second story of the condos. Ms. Dix said that the verticality is more apparent in the later drawings, and the fourplex looks rather massive. Ms. Ore mentioned that the spaces were less broken up, and are more monolithic than the previous designs were. Ms. Stansfield asked the designers to clarify what they were hoping to accomplish in their design, compared to the Sheely site. Mr. Kramer said the the LPC is giving them conflicting opinions — the design is too busy, and the design is not busy enough. Mr. Frick replied that there are more than two people on the Board, so that might be expected. Ms. Ore said that Sheely Drive is going to be one of the crown jewels of our historical areas in Ft. Collins. In 20-50 years, it's going to be a really significant subdivision. She added that the garages there have low pitched, gabled roofs. The design presented for Young's Pasture is not like anything in the existing neighborhood. She was told that the designers have been forced into some things because of the City's density requirements. Landmark Preservation Commissiol'r • August 28, 2002 Meeting Minutes Page 7 Ms. Stansfield asked about flooding, and if this area flooded during the recent flood. The attending neighbors answered that the area definitely flooded, but the developer answered that this plan has been reviewed by the City, and the problem has been addressed with an extensive review. Potential flooding issues are being accommodated. Ms. Watrous asked about the Granny apartments, and noted that they are two- story buildings. She asked if granny is supposed to hike up to the second floor, and noted that to her it looks more like student housing. Ms. Aguilera replied to this, saying that there is student housing just to the west of this and it doesn't look anything like these designs. Also, you don't go through Sheely neighborhood to get to this area. It is new development and is a different density. The buildings are two stories, but you can see over them. The three story buildings to the west are the bad views. Ms. Aguilera said that she finds the design to have elements of the Sheely district. They are not opposite, and she finds them to be complimentary. Ms. Ore added that they will have to make sure that the two story buildings don't overwhelm the district. Ms. Aguiliera said that the new buildings are in the lower area, and that the Sheely area houses are also two story, they're just two story in the back, and these are two story all around. Ms. Ore agreed, saying that she thinks this is an excellent approach to incorporating this complex into a historic district. Ms. Dix asked if the changes were made due to constraints in the City Code. She was told that they had to work within the City's parameters. There is an envelope as to how long a private drive can be and what the setbacks are. Furthermore, some of the clustering of the buildings came out of meetings with staff. Mr. Frick said that, compared to the "millions of buildings" concept that the LPC saw, this is absolutely fantastic. He is glad to see the elements, guidelines, level of detail, and the twisting of buildings. He added that there are two things that bother him. He didn't see how the flat sides of the granny flats are articulated. Also, the roof seems to be a sort of huge mass over it. He asked if there was a way to recess part of the second floor so there's a break in the roof plane, like they've done in the other buildings. Or perhaps they could turn a gable in, leaving the horizontality, but breaking the roof plane. Mr. Vigil said they could have a gable over the smaller portion, and that this could break up the roof plane. Mr. Frick added that for the fourplex, they could change one of the roofs, compared to the other one. That would change the whole flavor there. Mr. Kramer agreed that it's a bit symmetrical. Mr. Frick encouraged the designers to continue on with the guidelines, saying that they are a good companion to the Sheely Drive neighborhood, with the roof planes, and the movement in and out. Public input: Deborah Applin said that these designs are much better looking than the interim designs, and will go better with the neighborhood. Mr. Frick agreed, saying that the designers have now laid down the level or standard, and now it's up to them to keep up to it. Landmark Preservation Commissiolt" • August 28, 2002 Meeting Minutes Page 8 Richard DeVore said that, looking at the original concept sketches from Sept. 2000, these designs have moved back closer to them. He strongly believes that the nature of this development — how it gets realized — is important to the long term viability of the Sheely neighborhood. He is concerned that Prospect has gone to rentals, and is afraid that Sheely may go that way too. The nature of how this is developed, and how the details are realized, is absolutely critical. He added that when he hears that stucco is being used, he wants to know if it will be real or synthetic stucco. What's at stake here is 50 years down the road -- is Ft. Collins going to be proud of its historic neighborhood? If the balance is thrown off people will start renting. The final details will be critical and he sees a lot of reduction to the drama contained in those first drawings. These are much less dramatic than the original concept. He said that he is concerned that the quality and details be such that the people are proud to live there, and they'd be proud to have them as neighbors. Paula Puliston said that she thinks it looks really busy with that many units there, while Sheely is a quiet neighborhood. Jana Brandes asked if the granny units will be attached. She was informed that they will be. She asked how they can work within the code and have them be detached. She also asked about outdoor living spaces, and if the houses will have yards. Mr. Kramer said that they face one of the best dedicated green spaces of the city, and they are something in between a patio home and a house with a yard. The bike trail was pointed out on the map. Pat Wilkins -Wells noted that most of these buildings will be on a slope, but on the drawings everything is level. She asked if the buildings will be set within the contour of the existing slopes or will the lots be leveled. She was told that with the single family residences the landscape falls away a bit, and they have planned for retaining walls. They will be leveling as little as possible. Richard DeVore asked for more details about the walls — where are they. He added that these are some of the living amenities that will perpetuate the livability. Mr. Olt, City Planner, said that when the project is resubmitted, the City will require building elevations, but they will not be looking in great detail about the architectural detail. Typically they do not require plans for the level of detail that they have been asked about at this meeting. Mr. DeVore asked if the outdoor living spaces, and so on, are a factor in the planning. Mr. Olt said they typically are not. He feels that those are over -regulated. He said, when they submit the development package to us, if the City feels that they need to see more information, they will ask for it. Mr. Kramer said that this is a Level One review, requiring a public hearing. Veda Hogestad said that, for Ms. Aguilera's benefit, the site is only a little over three acres. It's not a big lot. Ms. Aguilera asked, for this level of density, is the Landmark Preservation Commissil • August 28, 2002 Meeting Minutes Page 9 percent of open space good? Ron Grace, the builder, said that this is the lowest level of density possible for this zoning. Jana Brandis asked what would be the target price for each unit: Ron Grace said that the single-family homes would sell in the $475,000 to $550,000 range. In order to make these into desirable homes, they will have to have the level of detail that is wanted by the neighbors. The three bedroom units in the fourplexes will sell for about $250,000. Pat Wilkins -Wells asked if the stucco will be real or synthetic. She was told that it will be synthetic stucco, which has some advantages in that it has some insulating quality to it. Also, real stucco does not hold up well in our weather conditions. It was added that stucco is a good building material, is a post-war material, and it can be done to look like real stucco. Per Hogestad replied that there is currently no stucco in the Sheely neighborhood at all, or even in the newer neighborhood. He added that there is a great selection of quality materials on those historic buildings to choose from, and believes that the developer's choice of stucco is an economic choice. Mr. Hogestad said that he thinks that elevations are really coming around, taking a lot of elements from the neighborhood, are well done and well proportioned. However, the overhangs are small compared to the original drawings, and he would hate to see them become smaller and smaller. He was also concerned about the massing of the fourplex, which hasn't been broken down into nice residential pieces. The garages have the same problem. He would like to see them include a gable or planes. The Sheely neighborhood architecture is about planes and how they work. He would hate to see this disappear in the final drawings. Getting back to the stucco, if the balconies are done in stucco they take on an International style and become completely different stylistically. Ray Kramer said that none of the balconies will have a stucco element; the stucco will all be in interstitial elements. Jim Tanner said that there are lots of half -million dollar houses in neighborhoods where you never see people outside. A letter was read from Carol Seemueller and David Fanning of 1645 Sheely Drive, voicing concerns about the Young's Pasture development. The remaining key concerns were a need for asymmetry in the design, the choice of building materials should be more consistent, with the current plans showing an overuse of synthetic stucco, and the need for a buffer between the new development and the existing Sheely neighborhood. They were also concerned that the off-street lighting be consistent with the neighborhood. Ms. Stansfield asked if the units would only have garages for one car. She was told that the three bedroom units have two car garages, while the two bedroom units will have one car garages and a space nearby for another car. Landmark Preservation Commissio• August 28, 2002 Meeting Minutes Page 10 Ms. Dix asked about the street lighting, and if they were planning on putting lights on the residences themselves instead of on street poles. Ray Kramer answered that the "private" drive now needs to meet public street standards, but that they do not want to have standard street light poles. Mr. Frick asked if it is possible that the LPC can put a restriction on the builders, that the LPC have a chance to see working drawings before they are approved. Mr. Stansfield said she would also like to see the storm -water runoff plans. Ms. McWilliams said that she didn't think that the LPC could require this. Mr. Hogestad asked if it would be helpful if the LPC could write a letter of support for the street lighting issue. Mr. Kramer said that once they go in for the application, they would like that. Once the plans have been submitted there are 30 days of staff review, then comments back within a week, and the builders have 90 days to resubmit. Other business: 1. This is further discussion on the City of Ft. Collins Code Changes, Mr. Jim Tanner, citizen, came before the LPC because he has a particular interest in the possibility that involuntary designations may be made by the LPC. He is concerned about a comment previously made that the LPC's Demo -Alteration Review procedures are a delaying process instead of actually being a prohibiting process. The idea seems to be that if a property owner goes through all of the necessary steps, then the LPC will either approve their plans or approve them with modifications. However, it is possible that the LPC could decide to disapprove them and propose that Council designate the property. There is no mention in the whole document about non-consensual designation. In Section 14-72, the implication is that if the applicant goes through all the administrative conditions they will eventually be approved. Subset C says that if the LPC wants to consider designation, they can postpone the decision. There is no mention of how the application might be disapproved. There should be a strong, clear paragraph in the code that the Council can non -consensually designate, and then what the owner can do under these circumstances. He does not personally think that a private home should be non -consensually designated under any circumstances. However, if this is a possibility it should be clearly described in the Code, and it is in the flowchart developed by Ms. McWilliams. Ms. Ore asked staff about what exactly is in the Demolition/Alteration Review portion of the Code. Ms. McWilliams said that non-consensual designation process is in another section of the Preservation Code. Ms. McWilliams agreed that the possibility of non-consensual designation should be addressed. Landmark Preservation Commissilo • August 28, 2002 Meeting Minutes Page 11 Ms. Tunner asked Mr. Tanner if it was his personal belief that non-consensual designation of a private residence should never happen. She asked if he could think of instances that non-consensual designation of a residence would be appropriate. He replied that, as with commercial properties, when a place has been part of the public structure, it doesn't belong only to you, but you are a steward of it. In such cases, non-consensual designation would be appropriate. But if a property has only been a private residence then the situation is different. People need to have control over their own house. Ms. Ore replied that private residences are part of the community. If private homes were completely unprotected, you could get a historic downtown with no neighborhoods around them. Mr. Tanner replied that this could happen, and it has happened. He was concerned that in these kinds of boards and commissions, if you get some power, you want a little more. Ms. Ore replied that this is an old American tension; community vs. private rights. In many ways, she feels that the Code revisions under discussion lessen the LPC's power. Mr. Frick said that he feels that the LPC needs to keep the possibility of non-consensual designations open, even for private residences. Mr. Tanner said that if this is the case, it needs to be made clear in the Code. This discussion will be brought back at the next meeting. 2. Nix Farm: copies handed out of new deck design for the west farm house. The LPC decided that it can be approved administratively. 3. Ms. Watrous said, regarding the addition design to Ft. Collins High School, "we lost unanimously." The addition looks very Post office like — all the detail is lost and what identified the building has disappeared. It's unfortunate that it's so ugly, and it's still in the same location. It seemed that the architect wanted it a certain way and was never willing to consider anything else. He told the University that it couldn't be any other way, and everyone ends up a loser — even the University who has supported the architect all along. Ms. Stansfield heard today that Slater -Paull had been hired and has been working on it for five years. She felt misled. The architectural firm didn't serve anyone, not even their client. They were asked by specific board members to explain certain Secretary Standards and they couldn't do it. They never answered the question. Gerry Bomotti was there to represent the University. However, it was felt that he didn't represent the University very well, not having attended many of the meetings. The audience was then asked if anyone there had attended the meetings. Ms. Stansfield was able to clarify things. Ms. Watrous described that Planning and Zoning said they would like to get together with the LPC to get to know each other a bit better. This is not to discuss any particular thing, but only in general. Ms. Dix said that CSU President Al Yates was the last one to speak. He thought the proposal was wonderful and highly recommended that the • Landmark Preservation Commissio�i • August 28, 2002 Meeting Minutes Page 12 addition was accepted as proposed. He said that the Performing Arts Center will go a long way towards revitalizing the High School, which is certainly correct. However, what was happening wasn't the right thing. Meeting adjourned at 10:17 p.m. Minutes submitted by Connie Merrill, Recorder