Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 10/22/2008LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting October 22, 2008 Minutes Council Liaison: Mr. David Roy (407-7393) Staff Liaison: Mr. Joe Frank (221-6376) Commission Chairperson: Ms. Earen Russell SUMMARY OF MEETING: The Commission held conceptual and final design review for the garage at the Dura and Neil Graham property, 811 Peterson Street, and approved changes to previously approved plans; held conceptual and final design review for roof replacement at the Mittry-Young House at 1601 Sheely Drive, and approved the plans as submitted; held conceptual and final design review, and Rehabilitation Loan Program review of the front entry door of the Reinholt/Mitchell House at 509 E. Myrtle Street, and approved proposed door for design review but disallowed proposed door for Rehabilitation Loan Program funds. The September 24, 2008 minutes were approved as submitted. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Commission called to order by Chairperson Russell with a quorum present at 4:36 p.m. at 281 N. College Ave., Fort Collins, Colorado. Earen Russell, Ian Shuff, John Albright, Alan Ballou, Sondra Carson, Bud Frick and Terence Hoaglund were present. Karen McWilliams, Preservation Planner, represented City Staff. GUESTS: Glen Zankey, General Contractor, for 811 Peterson Street; Per Hogestad, Owner, for 1601 Sheely Drive; and CSU students Anna Baldwin, Lindsay Dana, Hannah Gurth and Laura Esposito. AGENDA REVIEW: Addition of 509 Myrtle Street, Reinholt/Mitchell House - Conceptual and Final Design Review, and Review for Rehabilitation Loan Program Funds of Proposed Front Entry Door STAFF REPORTS: Ms. McWilliams reported that staff intends to apply for a Certified Local Government grant for updating the Historic Old Town District standards and guidelines. The current document has not been updated since it was originally prepared in 1981. Staff should know by the beginning of January if the grant is awarded. COMMISSION MEMBER’S REPORTS: There were none. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:  September 24, 2008 Minutes – Approved as submitted. PUBLIC INPUT: Chairperson Russell asked if anyone present wished to discuss any item not on the agenda. There were none. Landmark Preservation Commission October 22, 2008 Meeting - 2 - DESIGN REVIEW:  811 Peterson Street, Dura and Neil Graham House - Conceptual and Final Design Review of Changes to Previously Approved Plans for Garage Expansion – Glen Zankey, General Contractor Background: Ms. McWilliams reported that in April 2008, the Commission approved plans to enlarge the historic garage on this property, by adding a front gable addition to the side of the existing garage. The owners are now proposing a side gable addition that will not extend above the roof line of the existing garage, and will still be stepped back, further distinguishing new construction from historic. Staff highlighted the review criteria and the applicable Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. Discussion: Glen Zankey, general contractor, explained the new plans, which propose a much more sympathetic addition than those previously approved. Mr. Ballou remarked that they were a definite improvement over the original design. The paint colors presented are grey for the body, cream for trim, and dark green for the corbels. The LPC agreed with those choices, and staff will approve the paint selections administratively. Public input: None. Mr. Frick made a motion to approve, for conceptual and final design review, the changes to the previously approved plans for the Dura and Neil Graham Garage at 811 Peterson Street, finding that the proposed work meets the criteria contained in Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code. Mr. Albright seconded the motion. The motion carried (7-0)  1601 Sheely Drive, Mittry-Young House – Conceptual and Final Design Review of Roof Repairs - Per Hogestad, Owner Background: Ms. McWilliams reported that the Mittry-Young House was constructed in 1954, the first home built in the Sheely Subdivision. This property was designated as an individual Fort Collins Landmark in 1998, for its architectural importance to Fort Collins as an excellent example of Post World War II Contemporary design. Discussion: Owner Per Hogestad would like to re-roof the house, because the existing roof is more than 50 years old and has started to take in water. The home still has the original roof which is split shakes with the butt end ¾” thick and solid sheathing, and a shallow pitch of 3- 12. Mr. Hogestad is proposing a change from the wood roof to Timberline composite shingles in weather wood color with a 30-year warranty. This will closely match the existing shingles, but be a different material than the original. Ice and water shield will be added all around the perimeter, and a new metal drip edge installed, replacing the old. Mr. Hogestad stated they will be doing other repairs as well, such as the sheathing and galvanized flashing, which is rusting through in spots. Part of the ridge cap has been lost so a continuous ridge will be added. Public input: None. Mr. Frick made a motion to approve, for conceptual and final design review, the re- roofing of the Mittry-Young House at 1601 Sheely Drive with Timberline 30-year warranty shingles, as proposed, finding that the work meets the criteria contained in Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code. Mr. Hoaglund seconded the motion. The motion carried (7-0). Landmark Preservation Commission October 22, 2008 Meeting - 3 -  509 E. Myrtle Street, Reinholt/Mitchell House - Conceptual and Final Design Review, and Review for Rehabilitation Loan Funds, of Front Entry Door Background: Ms. McWilliams reported that the owners of 509 E. Myrtle Street were unable to attend the meeting. Ms. McWilliams reviewed the staff report, noting that the house is a very unusual example of 20th Century Vernacular architecture, with very good integrity. The home is also historically significant as an excellent example of the work of noted Fort Collins mason Leroy “Roy” Nye. The original front entry door was at some point replaced by a standard, hollow core metal door. The intent is to replace the metal door with a high quality wood door with multiple lights, in keeping with the original Craftsman/Prairie design of the home. Ms. McWilliams provided copies of the proposed new door, and of the door on the house next door. This door is believed to be original to that house, which was also constructed by Leroy Nye, at the same time, and in the same style as the subject house. Discussion: Mr. Frick asked why the owners didn’t think of using a door to match the original door and using frosted glass for privacy. Ms. McWilliams will suggest that option but that the door will likely need to be custom made regardless. Mr. Albright pointed out the sidelights that are existing, and commented that, other than at the top row, the proposed door did not align with the lights in the sidelights. Mr. Frick commented that this is an opportunity to put a door back exactly like the home had originally and still get privacy with the use of frosted glass or shades. Mr. Shuff asked if we knew what door was originally there. Mr. Frick asked if there is any documentation of the original door. Ms. McWilliams replied there was not absolute proof, but the standard is if there are similar homes in the area with original or early fabric, to see what they used. Mr. Shuff commented that what is being proposed is better than what is there now. Ms. McWilliams stated the owner is looking at alder wood for the door. Mr. Ballou replied that if the door is painted it doesn’t matter what the wood is. Mr. Albright made a motion to approve, for conceptual and final design review, the door as presented for the Reinholt/Mitchell House at 509 E. Myrtle Street, finding the work meets the criteria contained in Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code. Mr. Hoaglund seconded the motion. The motion carried (5-2). Ms. McWilliams noted that the replacement door is receiving funds through the zero interest Rehabilitation Loan Program, and would also need to be approved for funding under that program. The Commission discussed the role of the loan program funds, and if a higher standard should be applied to work receiving City funding. Mr. Frick made a friendly amendment to the motion that if the door proposed to be used is not part of the zero interest loan on the project, the previous motion stands; but that if the door is part of the zero interest loan, it must closely match the door at 511 E. Myrtle Street. Mr. Hoaglund accepted the friendly amendment. The friendly amendment carried (7-0). Landmark Preservation Commission October 22, 2008 Meeting - 4 - OTHER BUSINESS: Ms. McWilliams handed out copies of a recent newspaper article chastising Historic Denver Inc. for its “tepid approach to … important preservation situations.” The Director of Historic Denver, Steve Turner, has recently accepted the position as Director of the State Historical Fund. Mr. Hogestad commented that Victor Hornbein, whose work is mentioned in the article, also designed the Denver Botanical Garden building and did the reverse paintings on the elevators in the capital building. Ms. McWilliams pointed out that the same criticism, that of a tepid approach, could be leveled at Fort Collins’ commission. The LPC represents the community, and needs to take a more active role and a stronger voice, since our local Historic Development Corporation hasn’t been active for five to six years. Ms. McWilliams received a letter from applicants who were at a previous meeting, expressing dismay at the lack of personal attention they felt they received from the commission. The commission loved their project and quickly approved it, but the applicants felt that they needed more kudos and acknowledgement of their efforts to care for their property. The Commission discussed several ways in which members can better acknowledge applicants’ efforts and better express their appreciation to property owners. Suggestions made included: taking more time with applicants; thanking them for coming in; waiting dinner until after the meeting, so we do not eat in front of applicants; and more thoroughly discuss their projects, explaining what parts members like and what parts they don’t. Applicants need to know the reasons why the LPC votes like it does. Mr. Shuff suggested that LPC members each summarize their comments before voting. Mr. Hoaglund replied that City Council and the County Commissioners solicit comments from each member before voting. Mr. Albright has served on numerous federal and state governmental boards, as well as university committees. Mr. Albright expressed that, despite this criticism, this is the kindest group he has ever worked with. Mr. Albright asked about the new downtown hotel project. Ms. McWilliams replied it is in the design stage and the developers are still working out agreements for financial, etc. Mr. Frick asked when the Alley Improvement project is going to start. Ms. Russell replied they have funding but are not finished with the master plan yet, perhaps a couple of years. Ms. McWilliams stated the LPC should be involved in projects affecting historic buildings even if a project is not in the historic district. Ms. McWilliams also reported that the 260 E. Mountain project, Mitchell Block, will be coming in to give an update. The Mitchell Block is named after Gene Mitchell who was instrumental in getting downtown started Ms. McWilliams reminded LPC members about the Boards and Commissions Recognition Night on Wednesday, November 5, 2008, that the City sponsors and to please RSVP. Meeting adjourned at 5:27 PM. Respectfully submitted by Diana Sanger, Secretary