Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 03/31/2016City of Fort Collins Page 1 March 31, 2016 Ron Sladek, Chair Doug Ernest, Vice Chair City Council Chambers Meg Dunn City Hall West Bud Frick 300 Laporte Avenue Kristin Gensmer Fort Collins, Colorado Per Hogestad Dave Lingle Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14 Alexandra Wallace on the Comcast cable system Belinda Zink The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. Regular Meeting March 31, 2016 Minutes • CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Ernest called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m., noting that he would be chairing the meeting in Chair Sladek’s absence. • ROLL CALL PRESENT: Dunn, Zink, Hogestad, Wallace, Ernest, Frick ABSENT: Sladek, Lingle, Gensmer (all excused) STAFF: Weinberg, Yatabe, Schiager • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. • DISCUSSION AGENDA 1. REDEVELOPMENT OF THE 1500 BLOCK OF SOUTH WHITCOMB STREET - COMPLIMENTARY REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Colorado State University (CSU) is proposing a streetscape redevelopment along the east side of the 1500 Block of S. Whitcomb Street. CSU has asked for a courtesy review by the Landmark Preservation Commission. APPLICANT: Fred Haberecht, Assistant Director, Landscape and Planning for CSU Landmark Preservation Commission Approved by Commission at their April 13, 2016 meeting. City of Fort Collins Page 2 March 31, 2016 Mr. Yatabe recused himself from this item out of an abundance of caution, noting that he resides in the notification area for the project. Mr. Hogestad disclosed that he lives within the notification area, but does not believe that presents a conflict for him. Staff Report None Applicant Presentation Mr. Haberecht gave the Applicant presentation. He reviewed the scope of the project, and provided details about the plans. [Note: The Applicant’s slide presentation was not included in the packet, but has been submitted into the record.] Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion Mr. Frick pointed out a typo where the plan mentioned a 17’ parking lot buffer screen with landscape, but elsewhere it stated that was a 12’ buffer. Mr. Haberecht clarified that it is actually 11’8” inches. Ms. Dunn commented on the 8’ detached sidewalk and asked about the location of the attached portion of the sidewalk. Mr. Haberecht replied that was the existing 8’ attached sidewalk along Aggie Village. Mr. Hogestad asked what the original subdivision was intended to be used for, and when they were built. Mr. Haberecht didn’t know, but believes they were built around the same time for general single family housing in the community. Mr. Haberecht and Mr. Hogestad engaged in some speculation about the history of the residences. Mr. Frick asked if CSU owned all the houses on the west side of Whitcomb. Mr. Haberecht said at this point, C-SURF owns those eight houses on the east side of Whitcomb. He explained there would be a land transfer on May 13th from C-SURF to the Board of Governors, which would include the right-of-way for the sidewalks. No houses on the west side of the street are owned by the University. Mr. Hogestad asked Vice Chair Ernest how these houses were reviewed. Vice Chair Ernest said he believed Chair Sladek was involved in the demo/alt review, and Mr. Weinberg pointed out that there was a demo/alt application on page 7 of the packet that was reviewed by the Chair and the Director. Vice Chair Ernest recalled that there was once a hog farm where Morgan Library is now. He asked whether Whitcomb will dead end just north of Lake, east of the stadium. Mr. Haberecht said Whitcomb would continue north for a block as a 40’ wide street without parallel parking and buffered bike lanes and then T into the University’s Pitkin Street. For transit and service vehicles, that road will continue on to Meridian Avenue and exit at Loomis on Laurel. On an interim basis, this plan removes the S curve that was Meridian, and replaces it with a T. Long term, that road will again have a sweep in it and facilitate transit movement. Mr. Hogestad asked if they had a set of aerial photos, and Mr. Haberecht said there was a stack of photos from a 1964 flyover, but acknowledged they need to be appropriately archived with their library as an important historical record of the area. Mr. Hogestad said there is a circa 1957 aerial photograph that captures part of the Sheely District which he may have if they don’t. Vice Chair Ernest encouraged Mr. Haberecht to make sure any available information about these buildings is archived in the University’s library. [Timestamp: 5:55 p.m.] Mr. Yatabe rejoined the meeting. City of Fort Collins Page 3 March 31, 2016 2. 2016 LANDMARK REHABILITATION LOAN PROGRAM DESIGN REVIEW AND RANKING This purpose of this item is to conduct a design review and subsequent ranking of the Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program applications received for 2016. Staff has received application for a variety of projects from the owners of eight landmark properties. Staff Report Josh Weinberg presented the staff report, and described the loan program and process. He also reviewed the criteria to be used for the design reviews. [Timestamp: 6:02 p.m.] 117 S. Whitcomb – Applicant: Kevin and Suzanne Murray, Owners Staff Report Mr. Weinberg presented the staff report, and described the proposed work. Applicant Presentation Mr. Murray briefly addressed the Commission about the need to replace his cedar roof. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion None Commission Deliberation Ms. Dunn moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission waive the conceptual review and proceed to final review for the property at 117 S. Whitcomb. Mr. Frick seconded. Motion passed 6-0. Mr. Hogestad moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the proposed plans and specifications for the Landmark Rehabilitation Loan project located at 117 S. Whitcomb. Ms. Dunn seconded. Motion passed 6-0. [Timestamp: 6:08 p.m.] 160 Yale Ave. – Applicant: Judith Goeke, Owner Staff Report Mr. Weinberg presented the staff report, and described the proposed work. Applicant Presentation The Applicant was not present. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion Mr. Frick inquired as to whether the Applicant must be present to proceed. Mr. Yatabe replied that as long as the Applicant had notice of the hearing and was provided the opportunity to attend, the Commission has the application information in front of them to proceed. Whether the information is sufficient to make a decision is up to the LPC. He was not aware of any request from the Applicant for a continuance. Should the Commission decide to postpone this to a later meeting, they would be delaying the entire process for all of the projects. Mr. Frick said he was fine with proceeding, although it may be problematic if they have questions they are unable to ask the Applicant. If the information is complete, they could proceed. City of Fort Collins Page 4 March 31, 2016 Mr. Hogestad said there were some questions that should be asked, but he hesitated to delay the entire process for items that may be reasonably insignificant. Vice Chair Ernest agreed that being unable to ask questions may impact their ability to evaluate the project, but he felt they need to move forward, particularly since this proceeding was already postponed once due to the weather. Vice Chair Ernest asked about the skylight, and Mr. Weinberg explained that while it was part of the design review portion, it was a separate part of the loan request. Mr. Hogestad said he was disturbed that they don’t have any information about the materials and process for replacing the fascia. Ms. Zink said the photos aren’t very clear and aren’t labeled, making them harder to evaluate. Ms. Dunn asked if they can approve and score parts of the application. Staff explained that the score sheets have extra spaces, where an individual portion of a project could be pulled out to score separately from the rest. Vice Chair Ernest asked if the Applicant was expected to attend, and Mr. Weinberg responded in the affirmative. Vice Chair Ernest suggested moving on to the next application and coming back to this one later, in case the Applicant arrived. Other members were in agreement. At 6:20 p.m. the Commission proceeded to the next item, 239 Grant. At 7:51 p.m., following all other applications, the Commission continued this item. Applicant Presentation Ms. Goeke was present and addressed the Commission about the leaky skylights, which have been leaking since 2013, causing mold. The gutters, which were probably original, have buckled and are leaking. She mentioned there is also a missing section of gutters on one side. The gutters have also pulled away from the fascia, which now needs repair. Some of the flagstone pieces on the front porch are also loose or missing. Commission Questions and Discussion Mr. Frick asked whether the sandstone was at the front door. Ms. Goeke clarified that it was on the front step of the porch. Mr. Frick said he would like information on what kind of material would be used to replace the fascia. Mr. Hogestad suggested Ms. Goeke ask the roofer what that material would be, and she said she would e-mail that to Staff when she had an answer. Mr. Hogestad asked how the stone would be replaced. She said she still had all the pieces to be reset. The Commission agreed to treat this as a conceptual review and continue this until the next available meeting. [Timestamp: 6:20 p.m.] 239 Grant – Applicant: Erin Morgan, Owner Staff Report Mr. Weinberg presented the staff report, and described the proposed work. Applicant Presentation Erin Muths, representing her mother, Erin Morgan, spoke to the Commission. She explained why the work was necessary, primarily for safety reasons. Kevin Murray, Empire Carpentry, described more of the work to be done. He explained that Dan Hedrick Restorations would be repairing the windows and doing the work on the stucco. He discussed the work to be done to the porch, which he would be performing in compliance with the Secretary of the Interior Standards. He noted they are still looking for a historic picture to show how the porch looked originally. City of Fort Collins Page 5 March 31, 2016 Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion Mr. Hogestad was concerned that there wasn’t a lot of information about the porch work and what it would ultimately look like. Mr. Murray said the owner wanted to return it to the original state, but had been unable to find a picture. He said they need to find some historic background and do some discovery. He said it probably didn’t originally have a railing, but since the owner needs one for safety purposes, it could probably be removed later. There was some discussion about whether there had been a hip roof, and Mr. Murray thought there was enough vertical height for it. Mr. Murray said if there wasn’t one, there weren’t enough funds to make a new one, so they would have to work on the roof at a later date. Mr. Hogestad asked about the porch column posts. Mr. Murray said they were from the 1880’s and they will have to see what they can find. Mr. Hogestad suggested they could take clues from the neighborhood, if necessary. Mr. Frick asked if they can do some exploratory work to find out what is under the roof and porch, and develop details and plans around that to bring back to the Commission. Mr. Murray said getting the money for the safety upgrades would be the first priority. Then they can do some discovery and research, and use design assistance, to come up with plans for a more presentable porch. Ms. Zink asked about the size of the original porch. Mr. Murray said he didn’t know the original size, but can see the stairs underneath the frame steps. He said City Staff had said, “If you don’t know what was there, don’t try to make it”. They hope through discovery they can find the original porch or some idea of what it was. There was some discussion and speculation about the original size of the porch. Absent any actual evidence, Mr. Hogestad said the new porch could at least be compatible with the historic architecture. Mr. Hogestad and Mr. Murray discussed the damage to the stucco, noting it was probably due to water intrusion, which should be taken care of before re-doing the stucco/plaster. Mr. Murray thinks it may be the gutters or a leaky roof, but the roof is in good condition now. They briefly discussed the window work. Mr. Hogestad said there is a lot of vague information and stated he was uncomfortable approving something when they don’t know what it will be. Ms. Dunn suggested a condition that if they find enough original material from the old porch that it could be restored, they would do so, and if not, the safety improvements would be made without significant changes to the current exterior porch. Mr. Hogestad wondered if they could stipulate that they work with the Design Review Committee. There was some discussion about whether conditions could be placed on approving these, and also whether they could be scored at the conceptual review stage. Mr. Yatabe explained that each of these is like a demo/alt review where the Commission must determine whether the work meets the standards. He suggested that if the Commission does not have enough information to proceed to final review for some of these applications, they could be continued to a second meeting. Mr. Weinberg said in the past, when there were more applications, they would do them in two meetings with the first being a conceptual review and the second the final review, with all of the scoring to be completed at the end of the second meeting. He said the Commission could approve the applications for which they had sufficient information tonight, and for those that they do not, they could continue them to another meeting. Vice Chair Ernest, Mr. Frick and Mr. Hogestad all agreed that was a better approach. Ms. Zink commented that this project would be a good candidate for the design assistance program, which would take more time. Mr. Yatabe said if they are considering tabling this, they would need to provide the Applicant with detailed information about what information they would want to see at the next meeting. Ms. Wallace said she wasn’t comfortable with that approach, but didn’t have a better suggestion. City of Fort Collins Page 6 March 31, 2016 Mr. Hogestad requested more detail on what the porch, handrails and guard rails would look like, and commented that the exploratory work and discovery would help answer those questions. Mr. Murray inquired about the timeline for that. Mr. Weinberg stated the Historic Preservation staff would endeavor to schedule those for the next possible meeting, and that the next regular meeting would be April 13th. It was also noted that materials for that agenda packet would be due the 6th. Mr. Yatabe addressed the need to set a date certain for continuation of the meeting. However, since this item doesn’t have stringent notice requirements, the date would just need to be determined in a timely fashion. Ms. Dunn suggested having it on the next meeting, if possible, or the following one on the 27th if needed, based on agenda availability, not on the Applicant’s ability to provide the additional information. Ms. Wallace agreed with that approach. Mr. Hogestad reiterated that he would like to see some exploratory work done. The Commission agreed to treat this as a conceptual review and continue this to the next feasible meeting. Mr. Murray asked if the Commission would like to score just the masonry and window portions this evening, but Mr. Hogestad and Ms. Dunn both replied they would like to review the whole project at once. [Timestamp: 7:04 p.m.] 321 N. Whitcomb St. – Applicant: Kate Polk, Owner Staff Report Mr. Weinberg presented the staff report, and described the proposed work. Applicant Presentation Ms. Polk spoke to the Commission about her leaky gutters and poor downspouts. Kevin Murray, Empire Carpentry, spoke to the Commission on behalf of the Applicant, noting that the gutters are all seamed and failing. He described the work as preventive maintenance on the front of the house. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion None Commission Deliberation Mr. Hogestad moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission waive the conceptual review and move to final review for the Landmark Rehabilitation Loan project at 321 N. Whitcomb. Ms. Zink seconded. Motion passed 6-0. Ms. Zink moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the design for the gutter and downspout replacement at 321 N. Whitcomb, finding that the project complies with Section 14-48, of the Municipal Code. Mr. Frick seconded. Motion passed 6-0. [Timestamp: 7:11 p.m.] 618 W. Mountain Ave. – Applicant: William and Kathleen Whitley, Owners Staff Report Mr. Weinberg presented the staff report, and described the proposed work. Applicant Presentation Mr. Whitley briefly described the proposed work. He also noted that there are some additional projects he is working on this year, including storm windows on the front, building a new garage in the back, but those are being addressed separately and are not part of this application. Kevin Murray, Empire Carpentry, spoke to the Commission on behalf of the Applicant, providing additional detail about how the work would be performed and describing the C-shaped “bird’s mouth” rafter tails. Public Input City of Fort Collins Page 7 March 31, 2016 None Commission Questions and Discussion Responding to a question from Mr. Hogestad, Mr. Murray explained that the work would be flush so that one would not be able to tell it had been added on. Mr. Hogestad also commented that the photo of the gable should allow them to pretty closely replicate the original. He asked about the vertical pieces, brackets and screens, and Mr. Whitley responded that there was evidence on the house as well as similar structures in the area to use as an example. Mr. Murray said the goal would be to get very close to the original. Mr. Hogestad said those were character-defining elements and he was pleased that they were addressing them. Ms. Zink commented that the decorative rafter tails being bolted onto the structural rafter would simplify replacing them. Mr. Murray agreed that it would be easier to replace the whole piece. Commission Deliberation Ms. Dunn moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission waive the conceptual review and proceed to the final review for the property at 618 W. Mountain. Mr. Hogestad seconded. Motion passed 6-0. Mr. Hogestad moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the proposed plans and specifications for the Landmark Rehabilitation Loan project located at 618 W. Mountain, finding that the proposed work meets the requirements of Municipal Code Section 14-48, and the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. Ms. Dunn seconded. Motion passed 6-0. [Timestamp: 7:23 p.m.] 719 Remington St. – Applicant: James Danella, Owner Staff Report Mr. Weinberg presented the staff report, and described the proposed work. He also noted that the property owner was unable to attend, but a representative was present. He explained there had been some discussion between the owner and Staff about the gutters. The property owner would prefer copper gutters, but if the Commission doesn’t feel they meet the standards, he is willing to use painted galvanized half-round gutters. Applicant Presentation Adam Hamilton spoke on behalf of the Applicant. He talked about the priority list for the proposed work, most importantly making sure water doesn’t do any more damage. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion Ms. Zink asked what kind of gutters were originally on the building. Mr. Hamilton said as far as they know, there never were any. He commented that copper was chosen for its longevity, although it is more expensive. He said the gutters would probably be best in painted galvanized, but that was a decision for the owner. Mr. Hogestad commented that he would prefer galvanized gutters, as they are probably more common on historic homes, but said either would work. Mr. Hogestad asked if the metal overhangs over the garage doors were original. Mr. Hamilton said he didn’t know, but that the owner would like to keep them. He said the owner planned to use composite shingles left over from the main house, but he had recommended a standing seam. Mr. Hogestad agreed with using standing seam or even sheet since it’s a smaller area. Mr. Weinberg recalled that when the property was designated there was a historic photo of the garage that showed the awnings. He didn’t recall the date of the photo, but thought it could be presented to the Commission. City of Fort Collins Page 8 March 31, 2016 Vice Chair Ernest said the staff evaluation stated that copper was not a material commonly found on local historic residential properties. Ms. Dunn said she didn’t have a preference, but if copper wasn’t common, it helps point out that it isn’t original. Ms. Zink agreed, adding that both meet the requirement to protect the building, so she didn’t have any concern about the Standards. Ms. Wallace agreed, noting it was a removable element, if necessary. Mr. Frick and Vice Chair Ernest agreed. Responding to a question from Mr. Hogestad, Mr. Hamilton said the discoloration on the tan stucco is from water damage. Mr. Hogestad asked how the parapet was finished at the top. Mr. Hamilton discussed in detail how the galvanized flash capping would be installed, using an L drip edge, and explained that it would be flat. Mr. Hogestad said he would like to see that in a detailed drawing. Ms. Zink asked how the gravel stop or termination bar would follow the contour of the parapet wall on the front. Mr. Hamilton explained the process, adding that the stucco would remain the only thing at that front edge. Mr. Hogestad pointed out that it would still be taking in water, and suggested there may be a better preservation tactic to address that. Mr. Hamilton agreed. Mr. Hogestad asked if they would rethink the top of that parapet and how it might work and provide the details. Mr. Frick also asked for the detail for the shed eyebrows over the east doors. The Commission agreed to treat this as a conceptual review and continue to the next available meeting. Mr. Hogestad clarified that they would like to see sections of the flashing, cap and awning details. [Timestamp: 7:41 p.m.] 903 Stover St. – Applicant: Kurt Reschenberg and Tia Molander, Owners Staff Report Mr. Weinberg presented the staff report, and described the proposed work. Applicant Presentation The Applicant was not present, and Mr. Weinberg confirmed they had not planned to attend. Mr. Frick said the request seemed to be a straight-forward re-roofing, so they should be able to proceed with the review. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion None Commission Deliberation Ms. Dunn moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission waive the conceptual review and proceed to final review for the property at 903 Stover. Mr. Frick seconded. Motion passed 6-0. Ms. Wallace moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the final design review for the Landmark Rehabilitation Loan project at 903 Stover, finding that the proposed work meets the criteria of Chapter 14, Section 14-48, of the Municipal Code. Ms. Dunn seconded. Mr. Frick offered a suggestion that the Applicant might want to consider adding gutters to help preserve the exterior of the historic house. Mr. Weinberg agreed to pass that along to the owner. Motion passed 6-0. [Timestamp: 7:46 p.m.] City of Fort Collins Page 9 March 31, 2016 1108 W. Mountain – Gillian Bowser, Owner Staff Report Mr. Weinberg presented the staff report, and described the proposed work. He noted that the work to replace the skylights would be covered by the owner’s match. Applicant Presentation The Applicant was not present, and was not planning to attend. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion Discussion here Commission Deliberation Ms. Dunn moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission waive the conceptual review and proceed to final review for the property at 1108 W. Mountain. Ms. Wallace seconded. Motion passed 6-0. Mr. Hogestad moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the proposed plans and specifications for the Landmark Rehabilitation Loan project located at 1108 W. Mountain, finding that the proposed work meets the requirements of Municipal Code Section 14-48 and the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. Ms. Dunn seconded. Motion passed 6-0. [At this time, the Commission resumed discussion of the 160 Yale project, as the Applicant had arrived. Minutes for that item are continued in the 160 Yale section above.] [Timestamp: 8:00 p.m.] • OTHER BUSINESS Vice Chair Ernest explained that Staff had suggested establishing a set time for the Design Review Committee. Ms. Dunn thought doing that would limit the number of people who would ever be available, so it would always end up being the same people doing them. Some other members agreed that doing it ad hoc might get a different mix of people involved. Mr. Frick suggested doing it right before the regular LPC meetings. Vice Chair Ernest suggested using an online calendaring tool to have members identify times when they were not available on a routine basis in order to identify a couple of possibilities for setting meetings that could involve the largest number of Commission members. Vice Chair Ernest asked that this be passed along to Staff. • ADJOURNMENT Vice Chair Ernest adjourned the meeting at 8:03 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by Gretchen Schiager.