Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 05/08/2002LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting May 8, 2002 Draft Minutes Council Liaison: Eric Hamrick (225-2343) Staff Liaison: Joe Frank(221-6376) Commission Chairperson: Per Hogestad (416-7285) Summary: The LPC accepted the Conceptual and Final review of the addition of the house at 525 Smith Street, and approved the Conceptual and Final Review to restore the entry doors and add gutters to 426 E. Oak Street. The LPC also approved for final design, the pathways and lighting, and approved the update with conditions on the unapproved work that was done on 4605 Ziegler Road, the Preston Farm. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Per Hogestad, Carole Stansfield, Myrne Watrous, and Angie Aguilera were present. Carol Tunner and Joe Frank represented staff. Bud Frick, Janet Ore and Agnes Dix were absent. GUESTS: Bonnie Antich and Scott Le Cocq for 246 Pine Street: Catherine and Jim Boyd, owners, Evan Metropolis, contractor, and Keira Harkin, designer, for 525 Smith Street: Al Scott, prospective tenant, Angela Milewski, BHA Design, and Dave Lawser, owner, for 4605 Ziegler Road. AGENDA REVIEW: No changes. STAFF REPORTS: None COMMISSION MEMBERS' REPORTS: Ms. Watrous gave a report on the DDA meeting last week. There was a presentation on the liquor licensing law. There is currently a problem in Old Town on the weekends. There are 223 liquor licenses in Ft. Collins, and 44 of them downtown. The number of bars downtown is leading to a lot of inappropriate behavior. The Fort Collins Police Department is adopting a zero - tolerance attitude toward this, which the public is having trouble with. A solution has been proposed, suggesting that port -a -potties are put in the parking garages. There was also a discussion on the Linden Street Corridor Project, which is underway. It will include the areas of the Aztlan Center, Oxbow, El Burrito, Sears Trostle, and the Old Depot. There are no specific plans yet. The DDA will look into the possibility of a development plan for the Linden Street Project. They would like to get the property owners to design it as a whole area, as opposed to implementing several separate designs. APPROVAL OF MARCH 27 MINUTES: Carole Stansfield's name in the Roll Call section should be spelled correctly. Also add City of Fort Collins in front of Facilities on page 4. Landmark Preservation Commission • May 8, 2002 Meeting Minutes Page 2 Ms. Aguilera moved to approve the minutes for March 27 as amended. Seconded by Ms. Watrous, and approved unanimously, 4-0. CONSENT AGENDA: 246 Pine Street. Change storefront door — Conceptual and Final Review (Bonnie Antich and Scott Le Cocq.) Ms. Aguilera moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Seconded by Ms. Stansfield, and approved unanimously, 4-0 CURRENT REVIEW: 1) 525 Smith Street, Coffin House, Conceptual and Final Review of Addition. (Karen and Jim Boyd, owners, Evan Metropolis, Keira Harkin.) The owners of the locally landmarked, Homestead style house (1880) would like to enlarge the home with a rear addition that will enable them to build a larger kitchen on the first floor and have a larger master bedroom and bath on the second floor. This was the original farmhouse in the area. Slides were shown of the house and property. The applicants presented their conceptual plans at the last LPC meeting and the LPC suggested that they do a subordinate cross gable on the back of the house. They also suggested they consider a single story addition. The LPC Design Review Subcommittee met with them, and have together come up with the design which is now being presented. The design includes a lowered roofline, making the addition subordinate to the existing structure, and adding a back patio, which was planned but not clear in the last design drawing. The owners have decided that a single story addition will not fulfill their needs. The new plans will reflect a cross -gabled roof on the addition, which will be lower than the original house gabled roof. The proposed windows have also been changed to be in proportion to the house. Mr. Hogestad asked the owners if they have been able to provide the LPC with the window details, cut sheets, and dimensions. The owners have just received them, and the dimensions of the windows are on the second page of their handout. They will bring up the back-up documentation and these items will be handled administratively. It was pointed out that there is one dimension missing — the downstairs window where they are extending the office. Also needed are dimensions for the louvers. Mr. Metropolis said they will use ridge vents. The owners added that the existing window in the back of the office area will be infilled. Mr. Hogestad asked what the foundation material will be. He was told that it will be poured concrete. The current foundation is a block and rubble stone foundation, and the slab on back is a 4-in poured concrete slab. Mr. Hogestad said the design shown is compatible with current structure, and the applicants have done everything the LPC asked in the previous meeting. Landmark Preservation Commission • May 8, 2002 Meeting Minutes Page 3 Ms. Aguilera agreed with Mr. Hogestad that the addition is not domineering, and doesn't take away from the character of the existing house. The owners were asked why the addition is shifting by 8-12 inches wider than the original house. They responded that by bringing it forward, it allows it to look more consistent with the front of the house. The offset tends to break up the elevation also, and then you know where the addition is. They added that they will be putting gutters on to deal with water runoff. Ms. Watrous commented that this design is a considerable improvement over the design presented in the last meeting; it is really a very charming home. The owners said that one of the reasons it appealed to them is that it reminds them of the farmhouse they had in Virginia. Public Input: none. Motion: Ms. Watrous moved that the LPC accept for Final review the addition of the house at 525 Smith Street, as presented. Window and elevation marks, materials, dimensions, additional information is required as noted on the plans, and will be provided to staff by the owners. Seconded by Ms. Aguilera. Motion was approved 3-1. Carole Stansfield opposed, as she is not convinced that this is what we should be doing with our "cherished" old houses in Ft. Collins. 2) 426 E. Oak Street, Hoffman House. Conceptual and Final Review to Restore Entry Doors and Install Gutters. (No applicant present.) This proposal has been submitted by Katherine and Phillip Acott. They have received a no -interest loan to restore the front and back door, as well as adding white finished k-style gutters and downspouts to the house. The doors will be stripped at Hidden Treasures, and the doorbell will also be restored. Public Input: none. Ms. Aguilera moved that the LPC approve the Conceptual and Final Review to restore the entry doors and add gutters to 426 E. Oak Street. Seconded by Ms. Stansfield and approved unanimously, 4-0. 3) 4605 Ziegler Road, Preston Farm, Conceptual Review of Addition for Restaurant Use. (Al Scott, potential tenant.) The applicant would like to rent the Preston Farm House and use it as a restaurant. This would require adding a kitchen/bathroom addition on the northwest corner of the property. The kitchen would be accessed from a proposed glass corridor on the north side of the stone milk house or summer kitchen where one window would have to be converted to a doorway. The manner and intensity of use of the farmhouse will have to be changed. Landmark Preservation Commission• May 8, 2002 Meeting Minutes Page 4 Mr. Scott met with Alyson McGee, president of Historic Fort Collins Development Corporation. She voiced, as her major concern, the more intense use that the farmhouse will see as a restaurant, particularly that more people will be walking through it. Mr. Scott replied that George Washington never expected so many people walking through his house, and you can't tell from the building that it's getting so much use. As a restaurant, the Preston Farmhouse would seat, inside and out, a maximum of 100 people. Regarding asphalt, Mr. Scott doesn't want to pave, but there's supposed to be auxiliary parking to the north. The maximum number of parking spaced allowed is 25, and Mr. Scott believes that he will need fewer than that. According to the City, restaurants must pave their parking spaces. He would like to use cement with exposed aggregate, leaving as much of it gravel as possible, paving as little as possible. The pavement can be bonded so it can all be removed as it was originally, and this will be done if he gets the property. Mr. Scott will use all the buildings as they are. The restaurant will serve light fare; breakfast and dinner. He would like to have some chickens, ducks, and maybe sheep. He would also like to have outside seating in the existing patio area, with stone on the ground. The detail work on the exterior of building is very poor, with gaps between stones, window frames, and so on. This would all be fixed. The walls would be straightened and re -supported and the outbuilding would be used as a small wedding chapel or a place for kids. It would be a fun place, with the animals, if they're allowed. The addition for the complete kitchen and bathrooms would fit into an 18 x 45 foot 1- story building. Pictures were passed around of the area. The existing building is approximately 2500 square feet. The bottom floor would be used for the restaurant. The second floor, as is, could currently only seat 9 people. If a fire escape can be added, 40 people could be seated upstairs. How the upstairs is used would depend on if the second floor could have a fire escape. Mr. Frank asked Mr. Scott how many parking spaces he would like to provide. Mr. Scott said that he'd like 25. The parking would be on the south side of the building rather than the north side. Ms. Stansfield said that he may have a bit of a problem with the handicapped access. Mr. Scott said that he only needs one handicapped parking space, which is just a bit larger than the regular spots. The walkway up to the house is supposed to be handicapped accessible. Mr. Frick said that the addition is going to be an impact on the site and the structure, and the plan doesn't include the things you need to operate a restaurant; trash Landmark Preservation Commission • May 8, 2002 Meeting Minutes Page 5 removal, delivery, and so on. Ms. Watrous asked about what happened to the plans that the owner, Dave Lawser, originally had. She recalled that he bought this property for an insurance office and perhaps some other offices. Mr. Scott said one of the allowed uses was a B&B. But you need a certified kitchen for a B&B. So, if you need a commercial kitchen for a B&B, you might consider a restaurant. Mr. Scott shared the LPC's concern about the impact. He knows that every single thing that he's proposed will have to come before the LPC for approval, and that this will take some time. He said, "the fun of it will be working it all out so it works." Ms. Aguilera said that she found it hard to comment, since she doesn't know how it will look, but that the addition looked huge. As far as the site, all those service details can be worked out. But she finds it unclear as to how will it relate to the rest of the site as an addition. Ms. Stansfield said that she likes the idea, and believes that it would be wonderful to have a restaurant out there. She feels that kids and their parents would like to go and then see all the historic aspects of the house, but also felt that she needs to see what it will be like before drawing any conclusions. Mr. Scott asked the LPC what they would like to see as far as building materials: stone, stone and siding, what else? Ms. Aguilera said that the choice of materials might make the addition look smaller, but it would have to follow the Secretary's Standards. That is what needs to be followed, and it is not dependent on the LPC's likes and dislikes. 4) 4605 Ziegler Road, Preston Farm, Conceptual/Final Review of Pathways and Lighting on the Farm Site. (Angie Milewski, BHA Design, Dave Lawser, owner.) Mr. Lawser is using the Design Assistance Program to come up with pathways and lighting for the farm site. He would like to make the property, as it stands now, available for office use. A lot of development is proposed all around the site. Lot 4 is the farmhouse and adjacent buildings. The biggest physical change is to provide parking for the tenants for the building, which is now ready for occupation. There is a small parking lot south of the house in the open yard area. The first handout sheet shows the approved site plan. The property boundaries are the big row of evergreens to the north, including all the outbuildings, the detention area, and the granary. The property just to the south of it is also owned by Dave Lawser, but is for sale. That property is not part of this plan and will be developed as another office pad. The parking arrangement, landscaping, and pads, are all presented by Ms. Milewski Landmark Preservation Commission May 8, 2002 Meeting Minutes Page 6 to the LPC for Conceptual/Final Review, because the entire site is a historic district. As an aside, Mr. Lawser said that the turkey house has already been re -located; it was in the detention area. The LPC asked if the plan would all be changed if the restaurant idea goes through. Ms. Milewski said that it is not clear, and prefers that to be worked out as a separate project. She pointed out that the stone wall to the south side of the house today is not original but has historical character. The area between the wall and the house is proposed as an outdoor seating area for tenants. Of the proposed work the sidewalk has been built already, and the concrete pad is already in place. The pad was not approved originally. A flagstone walk exists, but does not connect to sidewalk, so it will be extended. The current parking will be paved as a softer surface to retain the historic character. The turf is also new, with the extent of the turf being shown as a dashed line on the drawing, except for what's paved. Mr. Lawser said he is not planning on rebuilding the broken wall and will just keep what is currently in place. The wall was partially broken during construction, and a tree was knocking it down. Ms. Tunner said that if the wall is in the National Register, and if it's part of the landmark, it should be restored. Mr. Hogestad said that they were obligated to repair the wall. Mr. Hogestad said that it seems like the site is getting more and more refined, instead of retaining its farmhouse character. Ms. Watrous agreed. She said that it's getting more modernized, and added that If the restaurant goes in, it's going to be changed more. It was her impression that this was to be kept as a farmhouse, but it seems like this is not the case. Mr. Hogestad said that this looks like a tough site to find a place for the parking. However, he is more concerned about the amount of turf and all the flagstone. These go well beyond an agricultural site. He was told that it is a historic site, but has a modern use as well, so they're trying to find a way to do both. He asked if there is a way to minimize the paths going through. Ms. Milewski asked the LPC if they felt there was too much pavement and too much landscape. Mr. Hogestad said yes. The patio area looks too contrived. It is a nice design, but is out of place. He asked if this will affect the ability to lease this place. Mr. Lawser said that this depends on the use. To make a little revenue, it needs to be attractive so people will want to be there. He added that he would do whatever the LPC feels is appropriate, and that the state will accept. Public input: Mr. Scott said that he thinks the stone is great. He has owned 5 or 6 houses from the time period — and all of them had a tremendous amount of stone out of Horsetooth. Mr. Hogestad said that he doesn't believe that the LPC is ready for a Final Review Landmark Preservation Commission • May 8, 2002 Meeting Minutes Page 7 on this. He asked if the rest of the Commission felt ready to vote on it as a Final Review. Ms. Aguilera said that the patio area is already defined by the walls, and so on, but regarding the landscaping, perhaps the LPC would like it more barren, as a farm area. Ms. Stansfield said that she is not sure it's ready for Final Approval. She would like to see a modified version that isn't quite so busy. She also asked if, at some future date, they could come in and modify the plan, if the use of the house changes from what has been established. She was told that, yes, they'll have to, since this is based on the use as an office. Mr. Hogestad asked the LPC if they had any concerns about the parking. Ms. Watrous said that she feels they'll need more, and she is not sure exactly where it's going to go. Mr. Hogestad said that they seem to have done about all they could do. Given that they do need parking, this looks like the best solution. It's a difficult area to work with. Mr. Lawser asked if they were sure it was not enough parking, saying that the City wants less parking. All around the area there will be parking anyway. Ms. Tunner pointed to the Aug 24, 2000 Final Approval, which says that the existing stone fence is to remain. She said that the fence should be repaired, as it's in the National Register. If it was damaged, it needs to be rebuilt. And it was damaged during construction and in taking out the tree. Mr. Lawser asked for suggestions about what they should do about the patio. Ms. Milewski suggested an open green area with picnic tables. Regarding the lighting, they would suggest agricultural lighting, subtle and low key. Motion: Ms. Aguilera moved that the LPC approve for Final Design, the pathways and lighting for 4605 Ziegler Road, the Preston Farm, per the submitted drawings, with the revision that the south patio is changed to a grass lawn, and including the reconstruction of the stone wall that was damaged during construction. Seconded by Ms. Watrous, and approved unanimously, 4-0. OTHER BUSINESS: 4605 Ziegler Road, Preston Farm. Update on Unapproved Work — Cesspool Removal, Irrigation Ditch Covering, Roof Pipes Installation and Concrete Pad in Front of House. (Dave Lawser, owner.) Mr. Lawser came before the LPC to explain about the unapproved work that has been done on the Preston Farm site. The cesspool has been filled in for safely reasons, as it was 20 ft. deep and dangerous, with a tree growing up out of it. He said that since the trucks were running over it and crushing it, he just had them fill it in. Ms. Stansfield said that she had no concerns about this, since it can always be dug out if desired. The irrigation ditch is covered with crusher fines at this time, and is starting to crack Landmark Preservation Commission • May 8, 2002 Meeting Minutes Page 8 through. The edges will be uncovered. Regarding the large, obtrusive roof pipes, these were not shown in the original drawings. They are working on a solution to move them to the north side, and are figuring out who will pay for it. Regarding the large concrete pad in front of house. Mr. Lawser put it there for safety reasons and handicapped accessibility. When they poured the first porch, there wasn't enough room for a wheelchair so they put this concrete pad in. The City doesn't like crusher fines, because wheelchairs sink down into it. Mr. Lawser said that the City didn't want the crusher fines, as they weren't familiar with it, but wanted concrete. It was suggested that they could do an acid wash, as this would take it down to the first layer of aggregate. It would make it a little more porous and would soften up the look of the concrete. Ms. Stansfield asked when the concrete pad was put in. It was done in January. Ms. Watrous reminded Mr. Lawser that he previously put up a permanent sign that wasn't approved. She is starting to wonder if there is some miscommunication about his responsibility toward the historic landmark status. He is supposed to seek advice on whatever comes along. Mr. Lawser replied that he feels that this project is something like having a child — it didn't come with instructions. Public input: Mr. Al Scott said that he used to work with the City of Escondido using soil cement. They mix cement with the existing soil. Motion: Ms. Stansfield moved that the LPC approve the update on the work that was unapproved, that the cesspool remain as it is, the irrigation ditch be uncovered, the roof pipes relocated, and that the concrete pad in front of the house be given a softer look. Seconded by Ms. Aguilera, and approved unanimously, &0. Meeting adjourned: 7:50 p.m. Minutes taken by Connie Merrill.