Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 05/14/2008LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting May 14, 2008 Minutes Council Liaison: David Roy (407-7393) Staff Liaison: Joe Frank (221-6376) Commission Chairperson: Earen Russell SUMMARY OF MEETING: The LPC recommended Conceptual and Final Design Review approval for three projects: repairs to the front porch, garage and mudroom of the George W. and Estella Bell House and Garage, 1108 W. Mountain Ave; repairs to front porch and roof of the William C. Stover House, 503 Remington Street; and porch and roof repairs at 610 Cherry Street, the Reverend Trudel House. The Commission held a Preliminary Hearing on the Demolition of the Paul Lee House and Garage, 530 S. Whitcomb Street. The LPC heard a Complimentary Review of a proposed new multi-use building on 252 E. Mountain Avenue. Dan Corson, Director of Intergovernmental Services for the Colorado Historical Society, discussed his quadrennial Certified Local Government review of Fort Collins’ program. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Commission called to order by Vice-Chairperson Ian Shuff with a quorum present at 5:37 p.m. at 281 N. College Ave., Fort Collins, Colorado. John Albright, Terence Hoaglund, and Bud Frick were present. Earen Russell and Alan Ballou were excused. Joe Frank, Advance Planning Director, and Karen McWilliams, Preservation Planner, represented City Staff. GUESTS: Dan Corson, Director of Intergovernmental Services for the Colorado Historical Society, for the quadrennial Certified Local Government Review; Kevin Murray, Contractor, for 503 Remington Street and 252 E. Mountain; Chris Ray, Owner, for 530 S. Whitcomb Street; Bruce Hendee, BHA Design, Inc., and Bob Hosanna, The Neenan Company, Nick and Elizabeth Michell, Susan Hoskinson, and Myrne Watrous, for 252 E. Mountain Avenue. AGENDA REVIEW: A Conceptual and Final Review of porch repairs at 610 Cherry Street, the Reverend Trudel House, was added under Other Business. STAFF REPORTS: Ms. McWilliams drew the LPC’s attention to Council’s periodic Board and Commission Review questionnaire that was previously discussed. Comments will be finalized at the next meeting. The Chair and the Vice-Chair both need to attend the July 8th Council Work Session. COMMISSION MEMBER’S REPORTS: Mr. Frick attended the April DDA meeting where Rich Shannon and Bruce Hendee discussed Mr. Hendee becoming a coordinator for the river project. Also discussed were the big amphitheater by the Justice Center and the idea of redoing the park between Linden and Riverside. The DDA also approved funding for Mr. Frick’s alley dwelling project. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:  April 9th minutes – approved as submitted. PUBLIC INPUT: None. Landmark Preservation Commission May 14, 2008 Meeting Page 2 of 7 DESIGN REVIEW:  1108 West Mountain Ave., the George W. and Estella Bell House and Garage, Conceptual and Final Review – Gillian Bowser, Owner This project was previously discussed conceptually at the April 23, 2008 LPC meeting. The details of the work have now been finalized, and the applicant is asking for final design review approval. Work will occur in three areas: the front porch, the rear mudroom of the house, and the garage. Because the applicant couldn’t be present for the meeting, she asked Ms. McWilliams to present in her stead. Ms. McWilliams read the details of the staff report and added that Ms. Bowers is going to lift the garage and put it on a concrete slab. She will replace rotted material around the garage’s foundation caused by a build up of asphalt from the parking lot of Beaver’s Market. Ms. Bowers also want to add a new door on the alley side of the garage, retaining the original door as well, matching the new alley door to the front. The front porch deck will be cut back about 10 inches, and a new wood border will be added, framing the porch deck. Mr. Shuff commented that the door on the garage is okay with him. The porch decking, done in this manner, in one way preserves the original fabric but also changes the look of the historic porch. He felt it was an acceptable compromise. Mr. Frick clarified that they are cutting everything back to where it’s good wood, and then putting a framed border around it. Mr. Shuff thinks it’ll look a little odd, and suggested as an alternative a more labor-intensive but historically preferred option of staggering the joints. Ms. McWilliams will provide the applicant with that information. Mr. Hoaglund thought it would be almost easier to replace all the decking. Mr. Shuff agreed that it would be easier, although the historic fabric would then be lost. Ms. McWilliams pointed out that the rest of decking still is in relatively good shape, probably due to being carpeted, and Ms. Bowers wants to preserve as much of the historic fabric as possible. Mr. Hoaglund asked how they intend to get underneath and support the columns on the front porch. He also questioned that if they are cutting the boards back ten inches and putting a trim piece along the front, are they also replacing the decking underneath the columns? Mr. Frick clarified that if they’re cutting the edges of the boards back, are they putting blocking in to support this ten-inch edge? Ms. McWilliams said that was her understanding. But she will have to find out what is proposed to happen to the deck under the columns, and report back to the Commission. Mr. Frank asked if they are owner occupants and Ms. McWilliams stated that she is. Mr. Shuff commented that the decking is the only thing that needs to be addressed and that although the changes to the decking are not his preference and he’s not sure if they are retaining the original fabric, he thinks it’s okay, although he cautioned that it would change the look. Mr. Frick agreed that it will change the appearance, and said that it would create a different pattern. He isn’t sure how well it will work, as it would block the end grain of the old wood, causing issues at that point. The joint would also collect water. The next time will it be another ten inches back and another ten inch border? Public Input: Mr. Murray stated that it’s not too hard to cut back and stagger the boards in the deck. You just drill a hole and take a jigsaw to it, but the hardest part is finding appropriate lumber. The old decking is 1/8” wider, so they’d have to use some old wood or they might have to special order it. If they bought new lumber, it wouldn’t fill the space. Mr. Shuff said another cost effective but complicated option would be to take some of the old planks from the edges to patch the deck, and add the new lumber at the edges. Mr. Frank stated that the applicant took a bit of a risk not coming to the meeting. Mr. Hoaglund moved to approve the Conceptual and Final Design Review of the work to the George W. and Estella Bell House and Garage, for 1108 West Mountain Avenue, finding that the proposed work meets the criteria contained in Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code, approving the mudroom and garage work with no conditions, and the front porch work subject to Landmark Preservation Commission May 14, 2008 Meeting Page 3 of 7 additional information on how they plan on splicing in the new edge board underneath the columns. Mr. Frick seconded the motion. The motion carried (4-0). DESIGN REVIEW:  503 Remington Street, William C. Stover House, Conceptual and Final Review – Kevin Murray, Contractor This project received 2008 Landmark Rehabilitation funds. Mr. Murray, of Empire Carpentry, described the front porch of the Stover Mansion as being 28 feet with a flat roof with a 90-lb roofing system that is beyond its life cycle. He proposed recovering the roof with ½” recovery board and re-roofing with 45 mil TPO roofing. Since it is a flat roof that’s not seamed, having different materials is good, and the TPO won’t be seen unless from above. The maintenance of the building will be easier for the owner with this option. Also, the chimney is leaking, causing rot to the corbels below the chimney on the west side, and the soffitt above the corbel is missing. Mr. Murray proposes to repair the corbels and soffitts, manufacture missing trim and repairing what is salvageable. He will also fix the flashing on the chimney, and fix leaks. The owner is very conscientious of the historic value of the property. Mr. Frank asked if the LPC provided a loan for all this work? Ms. McWilliams said yes, that all the work Mr. Murray described received loan funds, and that the owner puts up half the amount. Mr. Frank clarified that the brick repointing, etc. copied in the submittal are not included. The items highlighted in yellow in the estimate in the submittal are the only work for which loan funds were received. Mr. Frick asked what a TPO roof is? Mr. Murray clarified that TPO is like a PVC roof, usually either a white or tan fabric that comes in one piece. The corners and edges are glued, so it will not have many holes. They are a lot better than they used to be, since the technology has improved. Mr. Frick made a motion to approve the Conceptual and Final Design Review, of the work to be done on the Stover Mansion, 503 Remington Street, including the front porch roof repair, and the west side upper roof soffitt, facia and corbel repair, finding that the proposed work meets the criteria contained in Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code. Mr. Hoaglund seconded the motion. The motion carried (4-0). DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW:  Preliminary Hearing on Demolition of 530 S. Whitcomb Street – Chris Ray, Owner The Demolition Alteration Review Process requires a Preliminary Hearing to discuss the demolition or significant alteration of historic resources that are individually eligible for designation as Fort Collins Landmarks. The Paul Lee House and Garage, located at 530 S. Whitcomb, was recently reviewed under Section 14-28 of the Municipal Code, and was found to be individually eligible for Landmark designation for its excellent representation of the locally rare Dutch Gambrel architectural style. The applicant is proposing to demolish the dwelling and to construct a new, single family dwelling in its place. Ms. McWilliams explained the process, and noted that current photographs and survey information are in the Commission’s packets. She stated that the siding is not original, but that it is definitely more than 50 years old, probably dating from the late 1930-40s. Mr. Frick asked what’s underneath the siding and Mr. Ray said rotted out wood siding. Mr. Frick asked if Mr. Ray had submitted plans for the new dwelling, and Mr. Ray replied, no, that he has preliminary plans. He noted that he is intent on demolition. Mr. Ray then asked for member feedback and thoughts since he only knows Ms. McWilliams’ thoughts. Mr. Shuff stated that although the siding obviously is not original, the windows are intact, and it has major architectural elements that make it historical and recognizable and significant. He urged Mr. Ray to work with it. He could still make alterations to the house, but should preserve the unique-looking gambrel style roof. He didn’t know if that’s an option for Mr. Landmark Preservation Commission May 14, 2008 Meeting Page 4 of 7 Ray, but stated that from a historical and resource perspective, remodeling vs. rebuilding, both cost and environmental-wise, supported multiple reasons to work with the historic building and would still result in the project that Mr. Ray wants. Mr. Frick reminded Mr. Ray be aware of his carbon footprint, and stated that it’s a very unique structure, mostly unaltered and, other than the lower three-foot of asphalt siding, it seemed to be in perfect condition. He reiterated that the LPC gives monies for projects like this. Ms. McWilliams mentioned that Mr. Ray has done one historical property in the past, so he is aware of the financial incentives. Mr. Albright asked if the LPC needs to set a date for the Final Hearing and Ms. McWilliams said no, they have to post the property and advertise for 30 days once they receive the building documentation, and the timeline is up to Mr. Ray. Public input: Mr. Murray said that he is disappointed to see the home be demolished as a neighbor living four blocks away, and asked why Mr. Ray bought the property? Mr. Ray explained that he owns a lot of property around it and intends to put up another house there. Mr. Murray asked if he intends to do that with all the properties he owns in that neighborhood. Mr. Ray replied no, he thinks his other properties all have solid foundations, but this particular one is old and has a terrible floor plan and is in terrible condition which would cause maintenance issues. He doesn’t like demolishing historical structures, but gutting it and remodeling it costs too much money. He has looked into that and decided that he is not going to keep the existing house. Mr. Shuff concluded that no resolution could be agreed upon by the Commission and the applicant, and suggested that Mr. Ray proceed on to the Final Hearing. Mr. Albright moved that this matter be recorded as unresolved and move to the next step in the process. Mr. Hoaglund seconded the motion. The motion carried (4-0). DESIGN REVIEW: • 610 Cherry, The Reverend Trudel House, Conceptual and Final Design Review Ms. McWilliams described the proposed repair of the porch and porch roof. The Commission heard a brief description of the proposed work as part of the zero-interest Loan Program. The were a few questions about the specificity of details at the time of Loan Program funding, so the applicants are providing greater detail and photographs addressing the specific questions asked. They are asking for Conceptual and Final Design Review, but if there are any further questions or concerns about the proposed work, the item will be scheduled for next meeting. Mr. Shuff and Mr. Frick discussed the decking, which is proposed as wolmanized boards, and stated that they couldn’t approve this treated type wood product, because of the perforations it causes in the wood and the difficulty of finishing that product. They would recommend a Douglas fir or other wood tongue and groove flooring with tongue oil or varnish to finish it. Mr. Shuff also pointed out that the roof needs to be fire code taper sawn wood shingles, not shake. Mr. Frick moved that the Conceptual and Final documentation for the porch at 610 Cherry be approved with the condition that the wolmanized decking is not approved, it should be original format TMG decking, and that the porch roof should be taper sawn shingles, not shakes, and that those changes will be submitted to staff for staff approval. Mr. Hoaglund seconded the motion. The motion carried (4-0). COMPLIMENTARY REVIEW:  252 E. Mountain Avenue, Proposed New Multi-Use Building Requiring Variances for Height and Setback; Bruce Hendee, BHA Design, Inc., and Bob Hosanna, The Neenan Company, Presentors Mr. Shuff had a conflict of interest, and turned the Chair over to Mr. Frick. He remained in the room to provide a quorum. The Commission held a brief recess from 6:31 - 6:43. Landmark Preservation Commission May 14, 2008 Meeting Page 5 of 7 Ms. McWilliams introduces the project. This is a complimentary review of a proposed multi-use building, planned for 252 E. Mountain Avenue, immediately adjacent to the Old Town Historic District. The Landmark Preservation Commission does not have preview over projects not touching designated buildings. However, due to this project’s proximity to, and potential to affect the character of, the Historic Old Town National Register District and Fort Collins Landmark District, the applicant has requested Commission input. The proposed project would be located in the Downtown District/Old City Center Subdistrict Zone. Subject to Basis Development Review, the project would need to meet all applicable Land Use Code standards, including Section 3.4.7, “Historic and Cultural Resources.” The maximum allowable height in this district is four stories of no more than 56 feet in height, with the fourth story setback at a 35˚ angle. The applicants are proposing a 4-5story building of 70 feet in height, and a variance of the setback requirement. Both the increased height and the reduction of setback will require variances. Situated at the triangular corner formed by Mountain Avenue and Walnut Street, the proposed new building will be located adjacent to the 2-story Food Coop/EDAW building on Mountain Avenue, and the 2-story Forrester/Seckner Block along Walnut Street. The project will involve the demolition of two existing buildings, a two story white painted building at 252 E. Mountain, next to the Food Coop. building, and a Tudor style insurance building at 262 E. Mountain. Both of these buildings were constructed in the early 1970s, and do not have historical or architectural significance. Ms. McWilliams stated that the LPC wouldn’t be taking any formal action, but providing comments. Mr. Hosanna provided more specifications about the project, stating that it’s a 5-story, 40,000 sq. ft. mixed-use building, with retail on the first floor and office space above, no residential. It will contain a private parking garage under the building, with possibly 10-12 spaces, reserved for a potential tenant. Mr. Hendee thanked the Commission and stated that they’re looking forward to their input. He said that although the building is a little out of the ordinary, the intent is to create a first class building that becomes a statement for the gateway into downtown. Mr. Hendee has a very well-known and respected corporate client currently in the downtown area, that is expanding their business and wants to continue to grow here. They want to make a statement that is really for the long term benefit to the city and to create the history of tomorrow. Mr. Hendee then presented a Power Point presentation of the project and renderings not in the packet prepared for this meeting. He also discussed that they are requesting variances on height and set back standards. Mr. Hendee explained the challenge of the existing site which is only10,000 sq. ft. Losing 15 feet on each side due to the setbacks on Mountain and Walnut makes developing floor plans very difficult. Mr. Hosanna said that one of the challenges is that, in a typical rectangular site, the setback is only on one side, but this is a two-sided setback, making it very difficult to find enough space in the triangle shape for an office setting. He mentioned that they typically work with ratios of about 15-85 unusable-usable space, and with the current zoning restrictions, it reduces the floor plate to ratios closer to 35-65, making it difficult to justify the shape and size. Mr. Hendee noted they would align lentils and cornices so they reflect the same street scale. He pointed out the pedestrian passageway to Walnut street, which would also allow people to see the ghost sign that is on the side of the Food Co-op building. They are proposing to use sandstone and brick for the building, as well as high quality materials for the awnings. The building will be in the Flatiron style, with setbacks on the third floor, and the rounded corner will glow at night to be an icon of the downtown area. It will be pedestrian friendly. Although it will be a large structure in a historical area, it still can be effective. Mr. Hoaglund commented that he loves the different massings and the rounded corner, but is concerned about the overall height and said that by itself it will really stand out. He thinks we will be seeing similar heights proposed for additional buildings in the future. Mr. Albright stated that he is very concerned that we are going to variance ourselves into a forest of tall Landmark Preservation Commission May 14, 2008 Meeting Page 6 of 7 buildings. It’s the sheer scale and mass that bothers him and would overshadow Old Town. He mentioned the 9-story hotel/convention center, and thinks that variance after variance is going to result in Old Town being held hostage by big buildings. He doesn’t understand why this building has to be as tall as projected, but otherwise thinks it is very friendly and interesting. Mr. Hosanna explained that the size of the project is driven by the need of the tenant, and it comes down to the business model for the project. It is about economic vitality, their interest in downtown, and their plans for what Fort Collins can become. The eastern side of College Avenue, and the development there, was not necessarily the most desirable to people living here when that happened, but their property values went up in spite of their opposition. Mr. Hendee reiterated that it’s a triangular site, the only corner lot like that outside of the Northern Hotel, and thought it wouldn’t be necessary to ask for variances if this was a rectangular site. He isn’t sure that they are setting a precedent with this variances for this building. Mr. Albright stated his concerns for the impact on aesthetics and the history/heritage of Old Town, and that Old Town should be the driver for new development, not new development overshadowing Old Town. Mr. Hendee said they are trying to modulate and reduce that sense of mass. Mr. Albright is concerned that the Armadillo site will also request a variance for a building that is bigger yet, resulting in Old Town huddling behind a fortresses of large buildings around it. Old Town is the heart of Fort Collins, as frequently cited in recognitions, studies and awards the city has received. Public Input: Nick Michell, a citizen and an engineer, stated that the rendering seems like it has an overhang and thought if they could get rid of that it would make the side look less enormous. Mr. Hosanna described the setback from the street, and they have it broken up as best we can, with stair step/wedding cake style to get masses to play off a smaller scale. Mr. Hendee, Mr. Hosanna and Mr. Albright all agreed that removing the overhang might help de-emphasize the height to the eye. Mr. Hosanna thinks that the code-compliant building that would be allowed is problematic, because, if designed to meet their space needs, there would be no windows allowed on the west side. Mr. Hosanna believes that they could lose their client based on the western view or lack thereof. Mr. Murray said he is concerned about the designated buildings. In the examples of Flatiron buildings the applicants provided, the triangle part is the outstanding part of the building examples, whereas on this building, the big overhang, which reminds him of the fortresses of Home Depot/Wal-Mart, overwhelms what could be a really pretty building. Mr. Albright was curious as to why those towers on top are visually so strong/powerful? Mr. Hosanna explained that those are part of the roof screen that hide the mechanical units which are 8 ft. tall, 40 ft. long, for the elevators. They have to be near stair towers, due to the sound transfer and duct work. These pieces can be pushed back off the façade and the size taken back. Mr. Albright mentioned the parking need and was concerned due to the demand it could create. Mr. Hendee said that the DDA is evolving a master strategy for downtown parking, and that the Remington parking structure across the street usually has parking available. Susan Hoskinson owned a building in historic downtown when the historic district was put into place in 1977. Although she no longer owns the building, she has a strong feeling about this particular area. At that time, the people who struggled to get that designation were also business owners who had a strong feeling about how it would grow and develop. As one of the first LPC members, she approved the final plan for Old Town Square in October 1983. She left town, and it was built when she came back. Historic structures and buildings, even outside of the historic districts, have a very strong impact on the heart of what we were trying to preserve, in 1977 and again in 1983, when we worked with a developer to enhance the Old Town area, and it has been enhanced. Driving east on Maple, she passed a four-story building, and she thought that it was huge! And she thought it hits you in the face, and now we’re talking even more massing for a much smaller triangular area. She compared it to the county courthouse and asked that Landmark Preservation Commission May 14, 2008 Meeting Page 7 of 7 everyone look at those buildings and translate that into the mass they’ll see in this part of town. The courthouse is six stories; whereas this at five stories is not quite as tall, it still really adversely impacts the Old Town district as a historic district. She thought it could be scaled down, more in keeping with the size of the Linden Hotel and the new building with the dress shop and offices on what used to be Linden Street in the Old Town square. She asked that the developers compromise so as not, in the long run, to create something that is not really Fort Collins. Myrne Watrous, a citizen who spends more money north of Prospect than south of it, mentioned that if she was driving in off I-25, she would think the proposed building looks like the Great Wall of China, and she would have no idea that Old Town and Old Town square lie beyond it. She would think “Is that all there is?” and go back where she came from. She also thought the slide that showed the proposed development east of Mountain was scary. She thinks requesting variances for height and setbacks is a terrible precedent to make, and at 70+ feet, the building is actually higher than the courthouse. Although she thinks the architecture is great, this is the wrong place for this building. She mentioned that we need to think of the economic importance of downtown, which is one of the rare bright spots in the city’s economic picture. Old Town is a big draw for residents and tourists alike, and zoning ordinances are put there for a purpose. Mr. Frick summarized the comments: that the proposed building is too big, and too tall, in height and in stories. He clarified that the mechanical screens are 5-6 ft taller than the 70 foot estimate. He said that it has great street architecture, wonderful massing, use of materials, windows, setbacks, various facades opposite of each other, and it’s on a very prominent corner. The city fathers who set up the height and setback restrictions did it right, as they were intending to protect what’s already in Old Town rather than allowing monoliths to surround it. It is a gorgeous building but the height needs to drop to where it’s supposed to be, then it’ll fit well in the context of Old Town as a new building and anchor, but not something that takes over the jewel of Old Town. Mr. Hosanna asked if there is any flexibility in the 35 degree setback, if the stair tower/elevator shafts can be extended beyond that without a variance. Mr. Frank said that he will find the answer for him. Mr. Frick suggested taking the top two levels of the building and cropping them out. Mr. Shuff took over the duties as chairperson. OTHER BUSINESS:  Certified Local Government Review – Dan Corson, Colorado Historical Society Intergovernmental Services Director Mr. Corson noted that the review is required by the National Park Service every four years now, and that this may eventually be changed to five years. Mr. Corson reminded staff and the Commission about the obligations and benefits of being a Certified Local Government (CLG). He discussed the history of the CLG program, and important federal decisions made that have influenced our programs. Mr. Corson described his review process, and briefly discussed his evaluation of Fort Collins’ program. He will provide additional details to Ms. McWilliams. Packets containing CLG information, including a code of ethics and CLG handbook, were distributed. Meeting adjourned at 8:07 p.m. Respectfully submitted by Rebecca LaPole, Temp