Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 05/22/2002LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting May 22, 2002 Minutes Council Liaison: Scott Mason (226-4824) Staff Liaison: Joe Frank (221-6376) Commission Chairperson: Per Hogestad (416-7285) Summary: The LPC heard plans for an addition to the Historic Laurel School, and discussed the City Council's upcoming review of the LPC. The fire damage to the Strang Cabin has still not been fully evaluated. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Commission called to order at 5:35 p.m. Commission members Agnes Dix, W.J. "Bud" Frick, Per Hogestad, Janet Ore, Carole Stansfield and Myrne Watrous were present. Angie Aguilera was absent. Carol Tunner represented staff. GUESTS: Jennifer Cordes and Adele Willson, Slater Paull Architects, and Greg McGaffin of Poudre School District for Centennial High School. AGENDA REVIEW: Additions to Other Business: Starbucks would like to add shades to their storefront. Current Review on Preston Farm item will not be heard tonight. STAFF REPORTS: Carol Tunner reported that the Secretary (staff representative) and Chairperson are now required to sign the LPC minutes. (The Secretary role is delegated to Ms. Tunner). Ms. Angie Milewski of BHA Design, sent 2 copies of the revised landscape amenities plan for the Preston Farm. These revisions included 1) The south patio is to be removed and will be replaced with irrigated turf, and 2) the stone wall is to be repaired. This completes the conditions for the project approved by the LPC on May 8. COMMISSION MEMBERS' REPORTS: Mr. Frick reported on his observations of the Strang Cabin. The County still wants to give the Strang/Strauss cabins to the City for a park. Since the Strang cabin was burned this year, Commission and staff members have gone to look at the damage (including Ms. Tunner, Mr. Frank, Mr. Hogestad, Mr. Frick and Ms. Ore). They have determined that they have insufficient information to know what is salvageable. Jeff Lakey, City Parks Planner, and Roger Dowdy, County Risk Management Dept., also went to view the site. Dick Beardmore will look at the area, will determine the condition of the buildings, review the area, and try to determine what is salvageable. APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 27 MINUTES: Carole Stansfield said that a change should be made to the bottom of page 6; "is a land ownership map" should be changed to "is any land ownership". Ms. Watrous moved to accept the February 27 minutes as amended. Seconded by Mr. Frick and approved unanimously, 6-0. Landmark Preservation Commisso is May 22, 2002 Meeting Minutes Page 2 CURRENT REVIEW: 1) 330 E Laurel, Centennial School, (Historic Laurel School) — Addition to school and window rehabilitation, Conceptual review for a Local Landmark (Jennifer Cordes and Adele Willson, Slater Paull Architects, and Greg McGaffin of Poudre School District). The Poudre School District is planning to enlarge the 1906 historic Laurel School, a local landmark and a contributing building in the Laurel School National and State Register Districts. Centennial School is currently using the building and has need for additional space. They propose to clear the site of the outbuildings. Three non -historic buildings will be removed, including a non -compatible 1955 gymnasium on the east side of the school. This will open up the view of the school from Peterson Street. A classroom and administration offices building, with stairwell and elevator will be built west of Laurel School and attached to the historic school by a glass connector. A large separate activity building will be built on the west half of the site, framed by Mathews and Laurel Streets. The applicants have said that the glass connector will not require any windows to be removed, but a portion of the existing brick at each floor level will have to be removed in order to have a physical connection. This connection will also go into the basement. Windows on the historic school will be restored with new brick mold and energy panels added to the inside existing sashes. No sashes will be removed. The Laurel School front entrance will be closed to the public for access safety reasons, but the front doors will be operable for student and faculty use. A new row planter to be built in front of the school steps, and removal of sidewalk there will encourage the public to use the new addition's entrance, which will be at grade and accessible. The applicants will try to spade and move the existing blue spruce trees that are in the space on the easement. As this is an alternative school, some classes are held outside. Slater Paull has spent time with the school staff to find out what educational spaces are needed. An easement runs through property, so nothing can be built in some places. Ms. Cordes said that they have tried to design a light glass connector between the old building and the new building. The fire escape that exists there now will be removed. The fire escape on the east may stay, but this is still under discussion. A stair tower and elevator are required for the program. These will be located adjacent to the main entrance. On west end of site, they will use a hipped roof for the new gymnasium. In the center of the complex, the architects have designed the building to have a curved front, which will allow an open space to remain. Brick will be used, some color other than the red, on the existing building. (Masonry will be used, not stucco.) Landmark Preservation Commisso May 22, 2002 Meeting Minutes Page 3 • Ms. Ore observed that the tower (with stairs) looks almost flush with the building on the plans. She was told that it will be actually 8 ft. back from the historic school building. The architects have tried to move it back as far as possible. Ms. Ore asked why it is in front. She was told that it needs to clearly indicate where the entrance is. This design allows more of the historic fabric to be exposed, but still leads to the entrance. Ms. Watrous asked if they will be rebuilding the cover over the basement stairs. She was told that it is now a metal shed, which will be removed. Something more compatible will be put there to cover the basement stairs. Mr. Frick said he had the same concern as Ms. Ore about the stair tower in front of the new building. He asked if they have considered flipping it, so it is in the back. The Slater Paull architects said that the school staff want visual access from the administration area to the areas where the students walk in the building. Mr. Frick said that they could flip both the bathrooms and the stairs, and then flip it so the tower is against the alley. He was told that it doesn't functionally work that way. If it was there, the stairs would be just 6 ft above the walkway inside, so you couldn't get through. He said that they could put the tower behind the stairs, and the bathrooms in front. However, in this case the vents would be visible in the front. Ms. Cordes asked if there were any other concerns. Mr. Hogestad said he'd like them to look at proportions of the windows on the buildings. Ms. Ore observed that in the model they have a flat roofed building leading to a hipped roof building, and they may not be compatible. Mr. Frick said that he didn't mind the flat -roofed portion, but just wanted to get rid of the competing tower. The Secretary's standards mention additions should be subservient and in back. Ms. Cordes said that if this is an issue the Commission is sensitive to, they'll take that into consideration. Mr. Hogestad said they are marking the entry with the tower which isn't the entry. Ms. Watrous said that the kids who will be in this building, for whatever reason, aren't going to regular schools. That tower looks a bit like a watchtower. The Slater Paull architects said that when it is built, with the openness of the tower it shouldn't look that way. Ms. Ore said that her main objection to the design was also the tower. She suggested that they take another look at the tower and the detailing, the window proportions, and the Secretary's Standards, saying that additions are supposed to be subordinate. Mr. Hogestad asked for more details on the removal of the buildings, how it figures in their plans, and how it will work. Mr. McGaffin said that the gymnasium is against code, and must go. It will be removed, which will open up the corner area. It will be open area, and is an improvement. At a recent neighborhood meeting, they really Landmark Preservation Commissialf • May 22, 2002 Meeting Minutes Page 4 liked the idea that there would be an open area park -like area there. Upon being asked if it will be used for parking, Mr. McGaffin said that it probably wouldn't. Even if you put parking there, it wouldn't be enough parking to really help. Ms. Stansfield asked what would happen to the little cement pond that's there now, and was told that there will be an outdoor seating area. Mr. Hogestad asked if the demolition of the building will trigger the demolition ordinance. The building is less than 50 years old, but the demolition ordinance may still apply. He would like clarification on that. Also, in that district, what is this building? Could it be contributing? This is in the National Register, and a local landmark. Mr. Ore said that if there was a building close to being 50 years old, but if they're in a district, they have to be evaluated. Being that close, the LPC may have to evaluate it. Mr. McGaffin said the entire budget is $5 million, the construction budget is about $3.9 million. Ms. Watrous asked for more details on what will happen with the doors and windows. She was told that they're planning on restoring the windows and doors of the original building. They will leave the existing sashes and panels, adding an energy panel. The existing doors are not the original doors. They want to bring the school back to its original glory, and try to restore the original look to the building. The School District wants them to clad them (seal with aluminum) but such a treatment is very unattractive. The existing windows are in good condition and they're going to try to reuse them. 2) 4605 Ziegler Road, Preston Farm — Removed from agenda. DISCUSSION ITEM: The LPC's Periodic Review is coming up. In this process City Council reviews about 5 commissions each year. A number of questions need to be discussed, and answers from the LPC members will be collated and given to the City Council. Board and Commission members can attend the City Council meeting when they are discussed. Answers to the questions: Ms. Ore said that regarding "current duties" it would be nice if Advance Planning could come up with more money for surveys. The Commission felt that the duties are correctly described; design review, designation, and so on. Ms. Dix said that perhaps the LPC could conduct outreach classes in the high schools. Mr. Frick agreed and added that maybe the LPC could do something for realtors, such as blueprint reading classes. Regarding question 2, the LPC no longer has work sessions. The LPC used to have one meeting a month, plus work sessions to go through things they will be dealing with Landmark Preservation Commisso • May 22, 2002 Meeting Minutes Page 5 before the next meeting. Ms. Tunner said that this didn't work — the LPC had some people waiting five or six weeks before they could get their project reviewed, and businesses just can't wait that long. The Commission felt that if they had more staff time, they could do more in the HRPP (Historic Resources Preservation Plan). No. 3 — The LPC seems to be accomplishing those things in its work plan. No. 4 — Ms. Ore suggested that the LPC may need better training sessions for new members on the board, since it takes a while to know the jargon, the Secretary of Interior's Standards, the difference between restoration and rehabilitation, and so on. More training would be useful. No. 5 — The size of the board is fine. It used to be a five -person board, but too many times there was no quorum. The larger board also allowed for a broader spectrum of the community to be represented. No. 6 — Ms. Stansfield questioned if there is adequate communication between the board and the City Council. Mr. Hogestad said that Eric Hamrick is the liaison, and he is available by phone at any time. Also, sometimes there will be a conflict of interest if he comes to the LPC meeting because then he'd know more about an issue than any of the other council members. But it is possible for any commission member to contact the City Council liaison. No. 7 — In Other Comments, the LPC members all felt that more staff time is needed. Loans/grants, would be better if the amounts could be up to $10,000, with more money available. Also, the LPC rarely sees the outcome of the projects that have been affected by the LPC. It would be nice if in staff reports, these types of things be shown but, again, more staff time would be needed to do this. OTHER BUSINESS: Staff received a phone call from Starbucks. They would like to put up interior shades. Exterior awnings were approved by the LPC, but the managers of Starbucks feel they will be vandalized. The interior shades will take the place of the awnings. These would be made of Phifer Sheer Weave, chocolate color, and would be mounted on the inside. This approval can be made administratively. Mr. Hogestad said that Mr. Wilder gave him a package of information on the downtown strategic plan, which will address a number of critical issues downtown. There will be about 5 meetings. Mr. Frick will be the primary LPC representative of these meetings, with Ms. Dix being the alternate. Ms. Stansfield and Ms. Tunner attended the May 10 P&Z Board Review of the Fort Collins High School Concert Hall Addition. CSU is coming back to P&Z at the next meeting. The location, design and intent of changes to Ft. Collins High School were to be discussed at this meeting. They talked about location and a bit about the design concept on May 10, and they have hired a public relations person who they will use to present their issues. The P&Z kept trying to get them to place the addition somewhere Landmark Preservation Commisso • May 22, 2002 Meeting Minutes Page 6 else, but they were resistant. Finally, CSU (Ron Baker) said that the architects and CSU wouldn't come back with their ideas for design and intent unless the P&Z would agree with them on their plans for location. Meeting adjourned: 8:00 p.m. Minutes submitted by Connie Merrill.