Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 12/01/2004LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting December 1, 2004 Minutes City Council Liaison: David Roy (407-7393) Staff Liaison: Joe Frank (221-6376) Commission Chair: W. J. "Bud" Frick, Jr. (484-1467) SUMMARY OF MEETING: LPC approved adding gutters to 5529 Timberline Road, Gill -Nelson house, and removing old and installing new utilities on the rear elevation at 140-142 S. College Ave., The Alpert Building, pending additional information on the proposed light fixture. LPC asked for additional documentation on the necessity of replacing windows at 520 Wayne St., Honstein/Johnson Carriage House. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Commission called to order with a quorum present by Vice Chair Angie Aguilera at 5:30 p.m. at 281 N. College Ave., Fort Collins, Colorado. Agnes Dix, Per Hogestad, Janet Ore and Ian Shuff were present. Bud Frick was excused. Carol Tunner represented City staff. GUESTS: Jeff Nowak, owner, 5529 Timberline Road; Margaret Webber, owner, and Wayne Carmichael, Ancar Construction, for 520 Wayne St. AGENDA REVIEW: No changes. MINUTES: Minutes of Sept. 22, 2004 were accepted as presented. STAFF REPORTS: Carol Tunner reminded Commission members of the CPI Saving Places 2005 conference in Denver, February 2-4. The City has no money to send members, but Ms. Tunner reviewed different options for attending economically. Fort Collins will be honored at the Friday luncheon as one of Colorado's two new Preserve America Communities — Pueblo is the other. Joe Frank, Karen McWilliams and Ms. Tunner will attend to accept the honor and share a slide show of the City's preservation efforts; the Mayor and other dignitaries have also been invited. Plans for reworking downtown alleys are progressing. Ms. Tunner shared preliminary thoughts from EDAW, the consultant, and reviewed the city's design guidelines for Old Town alleys. The plans for Trimble Court will have to come before LPC before implementation. She said that she had asked the Downtown Development Authority to include the LPC in the design charter for the project. COMMISSION MEMBER REPORTS: Janet Ore reported that the DDA meeting was not held on Nov. 3. CURRENT REVIEW 1. 5529 Timberline Road, Gill -Nelson House — Add Gutters to Carriage House and West Elevation of Main House, Conceptual and Final Review for the Landmark Preservation Commission December 1, 2004, Meeting Minutes Page 2 Zero -interest Loan Program for Historic Preservation — Jeff Nowak, owner, introduced by Carol Tunner. The applicant received a no -interest loan in February for gutters for both the main house and the associated milk house. The plan is to install gutters only on the west elevation of the house and all around the milk house to alleviate drainage problems in a flagstone courtyard between the two buildings. The applicant is asking for the LPC's input on the style of gutter that should be used. Staff felt that either K-style or half -round gutters would present installation challenges. The crown molding below the roofline of the main house would probably have to be removed to install K-style, while the straps needed to install half -round would have to be laid over the top of the new asphalt roof and be unsightly. In addition, K-style would not lay flat up against the canted fascia on the milk house, and again, half -round would have to be laid up over the wood shingles on the roof. The Commission reviewed photos of the two buildings showing the courtyard where water accumulates and sits against the foundation. Jeff Nowak explained the different options under consideration by Sanchez and Sons, the installers. He presented samples of both types of gutters and a triangular bracket piece that could be used to attached the K-style gutters to the milk house. He said his concern was nailing straps to hang half -rounds through the wood roof on the milk house would crack the shingles and look unappealing. He added that the crown molding on the main house was neither distinctive nor original, and he would like to avoid mixing K-style on one building and half -round on the other. Commission members discussed various options for attaching the gutters; Janet Ore felt that the water problem was significant enough that it would be worth losing the crown molding on two sides of the main house to preserve the foundation. Angie Aguilera felt the K-style was the better match with the lines of the main building. Public input: None. Ian Shuff moved that the LPC approve addition of K-style gutters to the milk house and the north and west sides of the one-story addition of the main house at 5529 Timberline Road, the Gill -Nelson House, using either of two acceptable options: If the K-style gutter is taller than existing fascia on the house, remove the existing crown molding and use return cornice on the south end of the gutter to make a good termination on the corner. If the K-style gutter is shorter than the fascia, use firing to block out the final portion of the fascia for supporting the gutter and keep the crown molding in place. Holes for the supporting spikes should be predrilled to avoid cracking the crown molding on the house, and triangle brackets should be Landmark Preservation Commission December 1, 2004, Meeting Minutes Page 3 used for support behind the K-style gutters on the carriage house. Janet Ore seconded and the motion carried unanimously, 5-0. Mr. Nowak said he would finalize the estimate with Sanchez and Sons and let Ms. Tunner know which option they select, based on the height of the fascia. 2. 520 Wayne St., Honstein/Johnson Carriage House — Replace Second Floor Windows, Conceptual and Final Review — Margaret Webber, owner, Wayne Carmichael, Ancar Construction; introduced by Carol Tunner. This structure was designated a local landmark, along with the main house at 1024 W. Mulberry St., in March 2004. This structure, formerly a garage, has been converted to living quarters for the owners, while the main house has been opened up as a community meeting facility. On the garage, the first floor windows and doors had already been replaced by the owners with vinyl systems that have the muntins sealed between two glass surfaces. The applicants prefer them because they are easy to clean as well as energy and UV efficient. The applicants would now like to replace the 1939 second -floor windows and doors with double -hung vinyl to match the downstairs, but would consider vinyl -clad wood windows with snap -on wood grilles. Estimates submitted for the various options range from $5,768 to $11,643 from Colorado Sash and Door. Staff felt this was a difficult decision in light of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards clear preference for repair rather than replacement of deteriorated historic features. However, the building is residential and a converted garage in which the first -floor windows had been replaced prior to designation, and the windows to be replaced are on the second floor and in an advance state of disrepair, growing black mold inside and out. In this light, staff felt that guideline #6 would allow replacement of the windows as long as they matched "the old windows in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials." Wayne Carmichel presented samples of the proposed replacement windows and reviewed the various estimates with the Commission. He added that the existing windows exhibited quite a bit of dry rot and insect damage; the majority don't open due to swelling and being painted shut. He estimated that about half of the windows had in excess of 30 percent deterioration. In addition, the single panes provide very little insulation. The proposed replacements are low-e double panes filled with argon gas. Per Hogestad suggested there are a number of chemical processes that can be used to restore deteriorated wood, and Ian Shuff pointed out that storm windows can be used to increase insulation. Mr. Carmichael said that the cost of chemical treatments and storms compared to replacement windows that offer the homeowner additional features of convenience, and questioned the historical importance of upstairs windows on Landmark Preservation Commission December 1, 2004, Meeting Minutes Page 4 the carriage house when the main house is being left untouched. Angie Aguilera felt that windows in general are a significant factor in architectural style; Janet Ore added that the carriage house was designated equally with the main house. Mr. Hogestad asked for more information on the recurring mold problem, which he felt could be a significant health problem. Margaret Webber said she uses a humidifier for health reasons, and no mold forms on the vinyl windows downstairs. She can also clean them easily because they flip out, which is what she'd like the upstairs ones to do as well. Dr. Ore said she understood, but felt the Commission needed more information to determine whether replacement of the upstairs windows is the only option. Mr. Hogestad felt that while the mold could possibly be mitigated, it could require extraordinary measures to kill the spores within the wood. Ms. Aguilera agreed with Dr. Ore that the Commission needed more information on the actual condition of all the windows to determine whether repair or replacement would be the most appropriate approach. Mr. Shuff asked if the other Commission members felt the LPC was expert in the area of mold abatement, and whether they could make a determination on that issue. Mr. Hogestad felt the LPC should be prepared to accept the applicant's statement that there is a mold problem, but Ms. Aguilera said that the evidence presented by the applicant hadn't actually documented the problem sufficiently for her to feel comfortable making a decision. Dr. Ore agreed, adding that to make a decision that she would be comfortable with she would like the applicants to lay out exactly what the damage is, window by window if necessary; how many would need to be rebuilt and how many would need to be replaced; and estimates comparing the cost of repair and the cost of replacement, and if possible, more information on mold abatement. Mr. Hogestad felt that mold was something treated on a case -by -case basis, by specialists, and the LPC did not need to get into the issue that deeply. Ms. Webber said they have scraped and painted the windows previously and the mold always comes back. Ms. Tunner added that she has seen the windows and they are black with mold. Ms. Aguilera pointed out that the third -party estimate for replacement made no mention of the condition of the windows. Dr. Ore would like to have an independent evaluation of whether the windows could be repaired, as well as a complete description of the mold and deterioration before making a decision. She felt it was important for the LPC to have complete documentation of the condition of the windows on which to base its decision, to be consistent with the guidelines for historic preservation. The questions to be addressed for each window are whether repair is possible and whether it is feasible. She added that she has no problem making an exception to the guidelines as long as there is sufficient justification for doing so. Ms. Aguilera agreed that it was important to have documentation of the extent of deterioration on the record in writing if the LPC allows the windows to be replaced. Mr. Hogestad felt it would be important to replace the upper windows with ones that match the existing windows or the lower floor. Landmark Preservation Commission December 1, 2004, Meeting Minutes Page 5 Public input: None The applicants will return next week with additional documentation. After the applicants left, Commission members held a wide-ranging discussion of windows, distinctions between commercial and residential buildings, and the LPC's position in enforcing guidelines. Members felt in general, making the structure livable can be the best form of preservation. 3. 140-142 S. College Ave. — Remove Old/Install New Utilities on Rear Elevation, Conceptual and Final Review — no applicant (owner, Bud Frick) present; introduced by Carol Tunner. The second floor interior of the building is undergoing rehabilitation of the apartments. As part of this work, the existing exterior utility installations are being removed and reinstalled on the rear east elevation. There is currently limited power for heat, electricity and gas, so they need to re -work the utilities for the rehab. In addition, the applicant has discovered two rear basement windows that had been drywalled in behind the boiler and covered on the outside by a 1925 addition. The applicant has salvaged these two discovered windows and placed them in nearby frames that had been converted to HVAC use, so the windows now light the basement again. They are not visible from the alley, but can be seen in basement window wells when close to the building. Staff recommends the utility work to bring the building up to code and continue the rehabilitation. Commission members reviewed sketches of the exiting and proposed placement of the utilities. Per Hogestad asked if staff had additional information on the proposed light fixture, but Ms. Tunner had none. The Commission felt it was important to see what the fixture would actually look like. Public input: None Janet Ore moved that the LPC approve for conceptual and final review the proposed changes to the utilities on the rear elevation of 140-142 S. College Ave. as presented, with the condition that the applicant choose a more appropriate rear light than the sodium HPS light fixture proposed, and submit a cut -sheet to be reviewed for appropriateness. Agnes Dix seconded, and the motion passed unanimously, 5-0. Meeting adjourned at 7:22 p.m. Respectfully,�ub"tted by Kate Jeracki, Recorder