Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 02/12/2014Approved by Commission at their March 12, 2014 meeting. LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting 300 Laporte Avenue February 12, 2014 Minutes Council Liaison: Gino Campana (970-460-6329) Staff Liaison: Laurie Kadrich (970-221-6750) Commission Chairperson: Ron Sladek CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: The meeting was called to order at 5:32 p.m. by Vice Chair Doug Ernest. Members present were Maren Bzdek, Meg Dunn, Kristin Gensmer, Dave Lingle, Pat Tvede, Alexandra Wallace, and Belinda Zink. Staff present was: Historic Preservation Planners Karen McWilliams and Joshua Weinberg and Recorder Angelina Sanchez-Sprague. EXCUSED ABSENCE: Ron Sladek AGENDA REVIEW: Historic Preservation Planner Karen McWilliams noted the last agenda topic ((Conceptual/Final Design Review: of 1544 W. Oak Street - Paramount Cottage Camp: Rehabilitation of Siding, Windows, and Concrete) had been pulled. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Landmark Preservation Commission minutes of January 8, 2014 were approved by acclamation. ELECTION OF OFFICERS: Mr. Ernest said that both Chair Ron Sladek and he (Vice-Chair) would be willing to serve for another year. He asked if any other members were interested in serving. No other nominations were forthcoming. The slate of officers (Chair Ron Sladek and Vice-Chair Doug Ernest) was approved by acclamation. SUMMARY OF MEETING: The Commission: • Approved January 8, 2014 Minutes • Elected Chair Ron Sladek and Vice Chair Doug Ernest for 2014 • Approved Rehabilitation Loan Program Conceptual/Final Design for: o 1108 W. Mountain Ave, Gillian Bowser o 719 E. Prospect Road, Carlos Gallegos and Laura Quattrini o 315 Whedbee Street, Maggie and Bryan Dennis o 108 S. Whitcomb Street, Veronica Lim • Conceptual Review of 320 Walnut Street – Goodwill Building Second Floor Addition. Landmark Preservation Commission February 12, 2014 - 2 - Time Reference: .02.40 - 1:00 REHABILITATION LOAN PROGRAM CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW AND ALLOCATION OF FUNDING: Historic Preservation Planner Josh Weinberg said the loan program is intended to encourage local landmark designation, to prevent deterioration of landmarks, to assist with rehabilitation costs, and to ensure compliance with Secretary of the Interior Standards Mr. Weinberg said the maximum loan amount for any project is $7,500. The zero interest loans require a minimum 50% contribution match. Repayment is due upon sale or transfer of the property and funds, once repaid, are recycled back into the program. Mr. Weinberg said all work must be conducted in accordance with existing City of Fort Collins design standards and guidelines and the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Properties under consideration are: • 1108 W. Mountain Ave, Gillian Bowser • 719 E. Prospect Road, Carlos Gallegos and Laura Quattrini • 315 Whedbee Street, Maggie and Bryan Dennis • 108 S. Whitcomb Street, Veronica Lim 1108 W. Mountain, Gillian Bowser Mr. Weinberg said the property at 1108 West Mountain Avenue is a request to restore/rehabilitate a wood shingle roof. Ms. Bowser said the property's historic designation took place about 5 years ago. Since then they've restored the original porch and garage. At this time, they'd like to carefully remove at least two layers of asphalt shingles and salvage as much of the original shingles for possible use on front siding and trim that had historic (134 years old) shakes that had been painted over. Commission Questions Mr. Lingle asked if the bids were such that funding would address the worse condition. Ms. Bowser described one of the quotes (from Wattle and Daub) that 'straighten out' the roof and allowed them to put cedar all across the roof. The extra cost would extend the line and make the roof strong. She does not believe that most of the shingles will be useable (either because of damage or because current fire code requires treated wood shingles) but if they are she'd like to use them on the front of the house. Public input: None No staff response. Commission Deliberation Mr. Lingle said he believes it is a fairly straightforward project with limited scope of work and he thinks the approach that’s being proposed (uncovering the original historic shingles and assessing their condition and preserving them where possible) is in support of the Secretary of Interior Standards # 6 to repair before you replace. He said he’s comfortable moving toward a final approval. Ms. Bzdek added that even in a worst case scenario, where no repair is possible, it still meets Standard 6. She doesn’t think there is any conflict there. Landmark Preservation Commission February 12, 2014 - 3 - Mr. Lingle moved that the LPC approve the 1108 W. Mountain Avenue Landmark Rehabilitation Loan project on final design review finding that such work meets the criteria of Chapter 14, Section 14-48 in the Municipal Code, Approval of the Proposed Wor, and the Secretary of Interior Standards, specifically Standard 6. Ms. Gensmer seconded the motion. The motion passed 8:0. 719 E Prospect Road, Carlos Gallegos and Laura Quattrini Mr. Weinberg said the property at 719 E. Prospect is a request to rehabilitate eight double-hung wood windows and to add storm windows. He said the number was limited to eight due to the available funding and that the storm windows are an eligible cost. Commission Questions Mr. Lingle wondered if the owners had identified which windows would be addressed. Mr. Weinberg said they’ve noted they’ll be addressing the ‘worst windows’ on the first floor. Mr. Lingle asked what a ‘self storing window’ is. Ms. Zink said it’s a storm window where you can raise the bottom panel and the screen stays in place year round rather than switching storm windows out seasonally. Ms. Bzdek said the storm window glass slides down so you can get a screen at the top. They said the operable part can be either on the top or bottom of the window. Public input: None Commission Deliberation Mr. Lingle moved that the LPC finds that there is sufficient information provided to approve the conceptual design and move to a final design review and that the LPC finds that the project proposed at 719 E. Prospect Road for the Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program be approved finding that such work meets the criteria of Chapter 14, Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code, Approval of the Proposed Work, and the Secretary of Interior Standards, specifically Standard 6. Ms. Tvede seconded the motion. The motion passed 8:0. 315 Whedbee Street, Maggie and Bryan Dennis Mr. Weinberg said the property at 315 Whedbee Street is a request to rehabilitate chimney and foundation mortar. Mrs. Dennis said the 113 year old home was assessed by Structural Engineer Gary Weeks in 2011 prior to purchase. He found some bowing in the foundation. In order to reduce the potential for continued settlement of the foundation, Mr. Weeks recommended they install gutters and down sprouts (which they’ve completed); make grade improvements once a raised bed is removed, and re-point the mortar. In addition to the foundation, they plan to re-point the mortar on the chimney above the roof line. Commission Questions Mr. Lingle advised that care should be given in selecting the correct mortar because if it’s too strong (stronger than the bricks in the chimney), it can blow the face of the bricks off. He asked if the mason plan to have the mortar tested? Mrs. Dennis does not recall him mentioning that. She thinks he felt that this type ‘N’ mortar was the correct choice. Mr. Lingle recommended that when the mason starts to take it out he’ll be using the appropriate material when re-pointing. Landmark Preservation Commission February 12, 2014 - 4 - Ms. Zink said the chimney appears to be badly damaged. She said it will likely need to be rebuilt rather than just re-pointed. She thinks the top 6 courses should be rebuilt. Mr. Lingle said they just want to make sure that the owner is comfortable that the scope of work is adequately covered. Should the fix require relaying brick, is it adequately covered in their bid numbers? Mrs. Dennis said given the size of the project, she’s not terribly worried about a change in scope affecting the budget to the extent that it would be a problem for them to cover unanticipated costs. Ms. Bzdek asked staff what is the process for addressing unanticipated alternations to the scope of the approved project. Mr. Weinberg said if the work changes substantially the project could return to the commission for additional design approval or the owner pay for the cost differential. He said it would be up to the property owner to determine how they’d like to proceed. Public input: None No staff response. Commission Deliberation Mr. Lingle moved that the LPC finds that there is adequate information provided and testimony of the owner to support approving the conceptual design and moving onto approving the final design review for 315 Whedbee Street, the Landmark Rehabilitation Loan project, finding that such work meets the criteria of Chapter 14, Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code, Approval of the Proposed Work, and the Secretary of Interior Standards, specifically Standard 6. Ms. Bzdek seconded the motion. The motion passed 8:0. 108 S. Whitcomb Street, Veronica Lim Mr. Weinberg said the property at 108 S. Whitcomb is a request to restore window weights and ropes in 11 double-hung historic windows. Additionally, they'd like to replace a non-historice front picture window with a historically appropriate pair of double-hung windows. Commission Questions Mr. Lingle asked staff which standard applies to the replacement of the non-original picture window with a more appropriately historic one. Mr. Lingle said it’s not a deteriorated feature. Mr. Weinberg said it would be Standard 9 – Exterior Alteration. Mr. Weinberg said you could also look at Standard 5 in that it speaks to preserving distinctive features and finishes or examples of craftsmanship that characterize the property. Ms. Zink said she wasn’t sure what they meant to restoring pulley’s and weights that were never there. Mr. Weinberg said he believed the weights were there originally but they were not accessible for repair. Mr. Weinberg said it’s his understanding the windows will be removed and repaired. In addition pocket doors that will be added so that functionality could be maintained. Public input: None Landmark Preservation Commission February 12, 2014 - 5 - Commission Deliberation Mr. Lingle moved that the LPC finds that there is sufficient evidence and information provided to approve the conceptual design and move onto a final design review for 108 S. Whitcomb Street, the Landmark Rehabilitation Loan project, finding that such work meets the criteria of Chapter 14, Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code, Approval of the Proposed Work, and the Secretary of Interior Standards, specifically Standard 6. Ms. Wallace seconded the motion. The motion passed 8:0. Mr. Weinberg asked the commission to complete the worksheets provided using the criteria attached to the worksheets. Once rating of the projects is completed, he’ll collect the worksheets and rank them. Time Reference: 1:00-2:04 CONCEPTUAL REVIEW 320 WALNUT STREET – GOODWILL BUILDING SECOND FLOOR ADDITION Josh Weinberg, Historic Preservation Planner; Tim Politis, One Line Studio LLC; and Peter Turner, Building Owner Mr. Weinberg introduced the item. He said the building at 320 Walnut Street, formerly the Goodwill Building, is located within the National, State, and local Historic Old Town District. This simple, one-story blonde brick façade building was likely constructed as an automotive garage. In 1933, it was the Fort Collins Rubber Company, followed in 1935 by the Farr-King Implement Company. In the late 1940s, it became the Montgomery Ward Farm Store and Warehouse, a use it fulfilled until circa 1965, when it became Goodwill Industries. For the last few years, the building has been vacant. Mr. Weinberg said that building permits exist for unspecified remodeling work in 1924 and 1929. In 1936, when it was the Farr-King Implement Company, the building’s rear door was enlarged to 12’ x 12’, housing an overhead wood door. A new chimney was built in 1938, and another, unspecified, remodel occurred in 1948. A final “front facing remodel” took place in 1959. At some point in its history, the garage bay openings on either side of the central door were turned into storefront windows. As depicted in the 1950 Assessor’s photograph, the entry with three transom lights above, may still retain much of its original configuration. Mr. Weinberg said they had provided the applicant a draft copy of the Historic Downtown Design Guidelines. He said while informative for the applicant it is not formally required at this time. Because this is a conceptual review, no formal motion will be requested. Ms. Wallace asked if this building is one of the contributing buildings in the Old Town Historic District. Mr. Weinberg said yes, it’s a contributing element to the district. Applicant’s presentation Tim Politis, One Line Studio LLC, said he represents Illegal Pete’s (Peter Turner, the owner). Mr. Turner said Illegal Pete’s is a Mexican bar and restaurant. They’ve been in business for 18 years and this will be their 7 th location. They have two restaurants in Boulder and four in Denver and are excited about establishing one in Fort Collins. Mr. Turner said the proposed Landmark Preservation Commission February 12, 2014 - 6 - design aims to maintain the original character of the brick building while refurbishing the entrances which have been neglected and modified from their original historic character. Mr. Politis said they see this project as enhancing the district. It’s located on the fringes of the Old Town District and that the south edge of their property is the district boundary. He said this portion of Walnut is poised for needed repair. He said it has parking lots that hopefully will be future development. They see this as an anchor that draws people and expands the downtown area. He described their location and the adjacent properties. He said they’d like to activate the streets and alleys surrounding the building in the historic district by adding an entrance off of Seckner Alley and providing a tenant space with primary access to the Old Firehouse Alley. Mr. Politis reviewed a historic photo and said when a historic storefront is largely missing, it may be appropriate to design a replacement that is a contemporary interpretation of a traditional storefront. He said they plan to maintain the original intention by using the traditional storefront elements such as a bulkhead and transom. The remainder will change primarily due to energy code changes and functionality. He described the use of quality, durable materials in colors that are similar in type and scale to traditional materials. He reviewed plans for entries: front and back (eastern side) portions of the building. He said being it will be a tenant space there may be a need for sense of entry. He noted they are willing to work with staff on a solution that’s amenable to everyone. Finally, they’d like to take one of the existing window elements located midway in the alley and cut it down to the ground. They would create an alcove recessed behind the brick wall to provide the proper exiting required by current building codes. Mr. Politis said they’d like to establish an active district destination by adding a second floor structure and rooftop patio that is designed to be concealed from view at the street level. He described a conceptual layout for a moveable shade structure so when the wind is strong or it’s the snowy season it can be pulled away. The color of the fabric is up for discussion. The initial concept for a color is one that would blend into the brick background. He said the addition would go from parapet to parapet. Additionally, due to safety standards, a guardrail that goes around the exterior patio is required. They propose a minimal design that allows it to ‘disappear’. Mr. Politis said their goal is to move forward. What they’re hoping to gain is an understanding that they’re headed in the right direction. If there are certain issues, they can explore those details and provide the commission with additional information. Their goal is to move forward in the design process, to develop the construction documents, to select materials, and to begin construction. They hope to get a general understanding that they’re safe in proceeding with the development of this project. Commission Questions Ms. Bzdek said she likes the concept overall. She said in the rendering, it appears the alley windows sandstone sills would be gone. Mr. Politis said that’s a rendering error—the sandstone sills will be maintained. Landmark Preservation Commission February 12, 2014 - 7 - Ms. Bzdek asked what they had to wrangle with to leave the kick plates in the front façade. What are the implications in the design and practical use of the building? Mr. Politis said they considered that in great degree, particularly after they saw the historic photo (after they had initially submitted). Their concern in carrying the garage doors all the way down is it allows for water to penetrate underneath. Also, the Fort Collins Liquor Board will not allow you to have an open garage. They would have to place a rail in front or behind the garage doors which adds a new foreign element into that façade. Ms. Bzdek asked if there’s a solution somewhere in between that does not preserve the look of a kick plate (a later, non- historic addition). Mr. Lingle said he understands their need for the kick plate to be raised and not have the overhead door go down to the ground. Could the kick board panels be paneled so that they emulate the paneled door that shows up in the historic photograph and the lower two pieces are actually paneled to match the glazed configuration of a roll down door. Ms. Bzdek agreed. Mr. Politis said that’s a great suggestion and they could definitely look at modifying the design to be more historic. Mr. Lingle asked what materials would be used for the 2 nd story addition. Mr. Politis said it would be a metal frame structure and steel behind cladding. It would have to meet all the energy code requirements (including insulation). On the exterior they propose to clad in metal siding with a pattern that mimics the rhythm that comes from the 1 st story doors. They’re going to try to get the ribs of the metal panel to line up with the openings and mullein patterns. They would choose a warm, darker color to match the hues of the brick. Mr. Politis said the metal panels will be flat and when they join to the panel adjacent to it, they have a little rib that sticks out. He said he’s seen it done as narrow as 1 inch wide. It looks like a little line that runs vertically every 16 or 24 inches (whatever the panel size may be). Mr. Lingle asked if the supports for the shade structure steel posts cut down through the brick. Mr. Politis said no. There’s an interesting pattern of pilasters on the outside of the brick where the brick jogs in and out. They are proposing to conceal/tuck them behind and attach them structurally. Because of the wind loads they need a ‘beefy’ structure. What they’d like to do is minimize that so it has the least amount of impact visually on this building. Mr. Politis said they need to learn more about the system and present that to the commission. He asked if there was any concern about tying it into the shadow of the pilaster. Mr. Lingle said no, that is very appropriate. Mr. Politis said their intent it to have channels with a very slender image – almost disappear visually. Ms. Gensmer asked if that would be the same on the other side. Isn’t there a building adjacent to it and would it go all the way down? Mr. Politis said that being they are on the property line, they may have to look at a different structure where it comes through the roof and is placed in-board of the parapet. In order to get enough anchorage, they would definitely have to explore that. Ms. Zink said that when they made their side exit door, rather than saw cutting through the brick, they have a mason do a nice workman like job of it (salvage bricks and square up the Landmark Preservation Commission February 12, 2014 - 8 - opening with full units). She wouldn’t have a problem with adding an exit. Similarly she has no problem with the amount of embellishment on the rear entrance for the second tenant. Mr. Lingle agreed. Mr. Politis said they were just continuing the front design on the back side however that design is up for grabs. Ms. Zink asked if they are proposing new windows to the side. Mr. Politis said the sides are existing. Ms. Bzdek said she’d like to see alternatives for the back entrance. She can see the concern to have a proper entrance for the tenant. She said when we’re talking about maintaining the character of the alley, which is important, maybe hearing a little more would help her. Mr. Politis said there is going to be a future tenant and they may have their own ideas of what they want for an entry. Would it be possible to leave this part of the discussion for that future tenant to weigh in? Ms. Bzdek asked what is the timeline for that and what would they do in the interim. Mr. Turner said plans for the windows, etc. will become clearer within the next 2 months – they are currently talking to potential tenants. Ms. Bzdek said what probably needs to be of primary concern is what is appropriate for the alley and the district. Mr. Turner said he’s been very impressed what Fort Collins has done with alleys. He said he would hope that whatever happens back there will be integral to what is happening with alleys in Fort Collins. He thinks what they have can be made to look great and whatever makes sense/lends itself well to an alley situation would be done. Mr. Lingle asked Ms. Bzdek is what she’s thinking is the rendering appears to be too ‘finished’. She said yes, it feels like a primary façade entrance. It doesn’t seem characteristic of that building – true to that building and it’s history. She’d like to see something simpler, maybe a little more industrial, and a little more true to the functionality of that original opening. Ms. Zink pointed out the little stone bands on the pilaster which means they were trying to dress it up a little. Ms. Zink thinks they were thinking of it as an arrival point and not just an exit. Ms. Tvede said she thinks their overall concept is elegant and that it is doing justice to what had previously been utilitarian. She said it is more than dressing the ‘old tart’ -- really remodeling and making her beautiful. She appreciates all the effort they’ve put into it. Ms. Zink said what makes her feel uncomfortable is the front (Illegal Pete’s) sign and two little holes for each letter. Mr. Politis said they are a little concerned about what they will find when the Goodwill sign is removed. He wouldn’t be surprised if they have to do some restoration to the brick behind there. He fears it’s been compromised somewhat already. Mr. Turner wanted to confirm the concern behind the Illegal Pete’s sign was the pin mounts. Ms. Zink said yes. Mr. Turner said they’ve previously pin mounted into mortar. Mr. Lingle said that would be something (installation sign details) they’d be looking at for final design review. Landmark Preservation Commission February 12, 2014 - 9 - Ms Bzdek asked when the lights on the front façade were put in place. Mr. Politis said the historic photo doesn’t show them and he assumes Goodwill (1960s) installed them. Mr. Politis said it is a rather flat façade and they would enjoy picking out new light fixtures. Public input: none Staff response: No Commission Feedback Mr. Ernest asked the applicant if they had the feedback they needed. Mr. Weinberg said if the commission believes it would be helpful, the applicant might like a summary of the commission’s sentiments on the various issues that were discussed. Ms. McWilliams said we’ll summarize the comments and add them to the minutes for the applicant and for the commission when this item comes back for a final review. Mr. Lingle said the one thing they have not touched on is the guard rail. He likes the things that are being said about it being transparent. He’s wondering if there’s a way to ‘sit it back’ a couple of feet from the brick parapet. Mr. Politis said they will certainly investigate that. Mr. Lingle suggested maybe they could have a connection and pull it back. Mr. Polities asked if the concern was primarily from Walnut Street or was it all parapet locations. Mr. Lingle said his personal opinion would be he’s less concerned about the sides than the front parapet. Ms. Bzdek said that having some distance from the edge (and where the people will be) will improve the preservation of the front façade and the original sense of a one story use. Ms. Wallace asked how tall the railing is expected to be. Mr. Politis said they will have to be 42 inches above the finished deck. Mr. Polities used some design software that indicated what the railing would look like at the shorter, required height and pushed back. Mr. Politis asked if they thought 36 inches back would be more appropriate. Mr. Lingle said he was not asking them to go quite that far, 24 inches would be okay with him. Ms. Wallace said she’d be more comfortable with it being more recessed and having a shorter rail height. Mr. Politis asked if the commission would confirm whether the request for a recessed railing was primarily on Walnut -- they are not as concerned on the alley side. Commission members agreed. Mr. Lingle said from his point of view he appreciates their coming in with an understanding of the Secretary of Interior Standards and embracing them. He likes they’ve come in with a design that meets their needs and respects the building. He said that doesn’t happen all the time and he really appreciates that. Mr. Ernest complimented them on their presentation – both the packet of materials and the information provided this evening. He liked the aerials and their orientation to the alleys. He thought they were extremely useful. Ms. Bzdek agreed. She thinks it’s going to set a really nice standard that will be imitated. Landmark Preservation Commission February 12, 2014 - 10 - Mr. Politis asked upon final submittal what would the commission like to see and feel comfortable approving. The commission provided the following feedback: • Mr. Lingle asked for a definitive dimensional setback for the addition/building permit ready and guard rail placement dimensions. • Ms. Bzdek said if the back entry issue is still somewhat in the air, then maybe there could be a couple of clear options in which they could approve -- an either/or scenario. • Ms. Wallace said she’d like to see some finalized color schemes. • Mr. Lingle asked for detail of their kick panel – a profile of the cut. • Mr. Lingle and Ms. Bzdek would like to see how the shade structure would be installed in relation to the parapet anchors. • Mr. Lingle said with a final you’ll need to bring samples or illustrations of the materials/colors of the shade structure. • Historic Preservation Planner McWilliams said the commission will require essentially everything they’d need for a building permit. Mr. Lingle asked if the windows on the alley side and the back will be refurbished. Mr. Politis said they would be looking to refurbish, maybe replacement of the windows inside the casements. They’d love to get double glazing panels but they have to look into that further. Mr. Lingle said they’d want to know at final what their firm final plans are. Mr. Politis and Turner thanked the commission for their feedback. REHABILITATION LOAN PROGRAM CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW AND ALLOCATION OF FUNDING, CONTINUED Mr. Weinberg presented the final tally for the rankings. He said the ranking is: 1. Roof project at 1108 W. Mountain 2. Mortar repair for the chimney at 315 Whedbee Street 3. Window restoration at 719 E. Prospect 4. Masonry repair project for foundation at 315 Whedbee Street 5. Storm window installation at 719 E. Prospect 6. Two projects for 108 S. Whitcomb tied Mr. Weinberg said that full funding is available for all these projects this year. He said there will be some remaining funds so there could be the possibility of opening up another round of applications. Commission members asked how the program is advertised. Mr. Weinberg said they have an extensive post card mailing to all designated properties and properties in historic districts. He said it also takes into account the various surveys that have been done and the properties that have been determined as eligible for designation. Mr. Weinberg said they also advertise on the city website. Landmark Preservation Commission February 12, 2014 - 11 - OTHER BUSINESS: Mr. Ernest asked if the Board and Commission Meeting on Monday, February 24, 2014 an information only topic. Ms. McWilliams said it’s up to the chair’s discretion how he wants to frame the discussion. Ms. McWilliams said she’d like to convey a message from the LPC’s Council Liaison and Council member Troxell who was present earlier -- they’d like to encourage commission members to attend. Both Mr. Ernest and Ms. Bzdek said they plan to attend. Ms. Bzdek asked the commission members to email them if they’d like any ideas put forward. Mr. Ernest adjourned at 7:46 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by Angelina Sanchez-Sprague