Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 09/13/2006LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting September 13, 2006 Minutes Council Liaison: David Roy (407-7393) Staff Liaison: Joe Frank (221-6376) Commission Chairperson: Angie Aguilera (377-4217) Summary: The Landmark Preservation Commission approved the Part II State Tax Credit application for 605 S. College Avenue. The LPC conducted a conceptual review of exterior alterations to 730 W. Olive St. the Guard House and made comments and suggestions for the work on the landmark property. The LPC heard an update on the Ghost Sign Campaign and upcoming tours. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: The meeting was called to order by Chairwoman Angie Aguilera at 5:40 P.M. at 281 North College Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado, stating there was a quorum present. Commission members present were: Angie Aguilera, Alyson McGee, Ian Shuff, Heather Donahue, Agnes Dix, and Alan Ballou. Earen Russell was absent. Staff members present were: Carol Tunner and Karen McWilliams. GUESTS: Cindy Harrison, Town of Windsor; Linda Meyer and Bill Stopperan, Windsor Historic Preservation Commission; Mike Green and Karen Junak, Stoner Construction, for 605 S. College Avenue; Mike Rainsberger, owner, and Bill Stashak, architect, for 730 W. Olive Street. AGENDA REVIEW: no changes STAFF REPORTS: Ms. Tunner announced she has registration information for the "Preservation in Pittsburgh" conference to be held in Pittsburgh from October 31 to November 5, 2006, for anyone interested in attending. Ms. Tunner invited everyone to attend the grand opening for the salvage recycling center at 1505 North College scheduled for Friday, September 15, 2006, at 7:00 P.M. This is a spin-off of the center in Boulder and is meant to recycle new and old building materials. Ms. Tunner also reminded the Commission of the Poudre River Heritage Area film event scheduled for September 21, 2006 at 5:30 P.M. Ms. McWilliams reminded everyone of the Commission Training, at the Colorado Historical Society in Denver, Friday, September 15, 2006, from10:00 A.M. - 4:00 P.M; this is a good training opportunity. Ms. McWilliams distributed an invitation for the open house of the Downtown River District Project on Monday, September 18, from 4:00 to 6:30 p.m. to be held at the Bas Blue Theater located at 401 Pine Street. The purpose of the open house is to present the final options of how the Downtown River District should develop. As this affects the area along the Poudre River adjacent to Old Town, it was recommended that all members attend. COMMISION MEMBER REPORTS: Ms. McGee attended the August Board meeting of the Downtown Development Authority. The ice rink in Old Town was discussed. Concerning its location, they were talking of permanently leaving it in Old Town and keep the railings up year round for use as a beer garden in the summer. The vault would need to be underground or have a structure around it. All plans for redesign originally submitted regarding the plaza redesign will not occur. If coils are put into the plaza permanently, trees cannot be planted there. If something permanent is done, they would Landmark Preservation Commission September 13, 2006 Meeting Draft Minutes Page 2 of 6 need to get approval. The DDA is paying for all instillation this year. A DDA Board member stated the rink could be one of the best things the City has done. No cost benefit analysis has been done, but they sold 6,500 tickets last year (no indication of to whom the tickets were sold). Regarding the holiday lights, one DDA member suggested putting up cross lights as a gateway to the City. Ms. McGee stated they did discuss the rink size, but a decision will be made later this year. Mr. Ballou reported that he received the June Downtown Development Authority meeting minutes. They discussed the Mountain Avenue Market Place. Since Mr. Ballou will attend the November DDA meeting, he wanted to know what the Commission's role is. Ms. Aguilera stated we are there just to listen and report back on any items of interest at the next LPC Commission; if an item should come to the LPC for discussion, staff will make those arrangements. Ms. Aguilera stated that Ms. Donahue was scheduled to attend the October meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The July 26, 2006, minutes were approved as written, by a vote of 6 to 0. PUBLIC COMMENT: None CURRENT REVIEW: 605 South College Ave., State Tax Credit Part II Approval (Karen Junak and Mike Green). Ms. Tunner introduced Karen Junak and Mike Green from Stoner Construction, representing Jay Stoner the owner of 605 S. College Avenue, the historic Beebe Clinic. Mrs. Tunner recommended approval of the Part II tax credit application for all qualified costs. The project meets all of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and it was an excellent restoration of the building. Ms. Tunner stated the maximum State Tax Credit is $50,000, and distributed the "before" photos. Ms. Junak presented the "after' photo's taken which included the entry door, dry wall, new conduit and insulation, new furnaces and water heaters, kitchen re -model, and the women and men's restroom remodels; noting the reception area's display of photos of the original building and Dr. Beebe. Mr. Green pointed out the recommendations and design for the lobby ceiling done by Bud Frick, former LPC member. Ms. Junak stated the glass block in the lobby is original. Ms. Junak shared photos of the custom milled furniture built-in to accommodate the small offices; and also the exterior brick, window sills, window casements and stucco restoration. Mr. Ballou asked if they had any trouble getting replacement windows; Ms. Junak stated they were not replaced but restored per historic preservation requirements. Matching bricks for those steps that needed to be replaced were obtained from the area and the entire front circular step was repointed. Ms. McGee pointed out that the brick is in a different pattern from the original photo. Mr. Green stated they changed the pattern because water had penetrated and rotted the brick in the original pattern. Photos of the new business sign, parking lot and light fixtures were shown. At the Part I hearing, Ms. McGee had requested photos of the original light fixtures to ensure the new ones were as close a match as possible. Photos of the historic light fixtures, some of which were found in the basement, showed the newly selected fixtures are a close match as white globes with three rings. There were not enough old ones left to use upstairs, but the original ones will be incorporated into the lower space somehow. Ms. Dix thought the restoration and rehab looked great, adding that she was once a patient of the former Beebe Clinic. Mr. Ballou thought the Art Deco architecture is beautiful. Mr. Shuff also complimented the entire project, and thinks the restoration is a vast improvement. Landmark Preservation Commission September 13, 2006 Meeting Draft Minutes Page 3 of 6 PUBLIC IMPUT: Guest Linda Meyer from the Windsor Historic Preservation Commission, commented that the glass brick sign incorporates the theme of the building. Ms. Junak pointed out that Da'Vinci did the sign. Mr. Shuff made the motion to approve the Part II application for Colorado State Income Tax Credit as submitted; Ms. Dix seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 6-0. 730 West Olive Street: Ms. McWilliams introduced Mike Rainsberger, owner of the Winslow/Guard house, and Bill Stashak of W. Stashak and Associates, Architecture. Mr. Rainsberger is requesting conceptual approval for alterations to the sun porch, on the home's east elevation; and to the potting shed/laundry room on the north (rear) of the house, located at the intersection of the house and garage. Sun Porch: On September 10, 2003, the Commission approved plans to enclose the existing screened -in east elevation porch. Constructed prior to 1948, this porch originally had the entry door on the south; it was moved to the porch's north elevation circa 1956. The porch also sits on a concrete foundation, currently faced with red brick, evidence of further repairs/renovations. In 2003, the LPC approved alterations to the porch that consisted of enclosing the porch with Pella double - hung wood windows, with simplified decorative cross muntins in the upper sashes. Double doors, with cross muntins, replaced the existing single screen door on the north elevation. The new owners wish to rebuild and enlarge this porch, turning it into a more functional sun porch or conservatory, using a fairly transparent glass design. Mr. Stashak provided a conceptual design of the proposed remodel. The intention is to not cover up any more of the house than the existing addition, which is too small for practical use. He proposes to use a product manufactured in the UK, to achieve a look similar to those used in garden houses in the British Isles. The pre -fabricated product is transparent glass with a frame of either clear red cedar, copper, or colored aluminum; the owners prefer the copper flashing. Mr. Stashak distributed product information. No company in the United States manufactures a glass roof with a guarantee, which is the reason they are proposing the UK structure; these are guaranteed, and meet our code requirements. They are transparent, meeting our standards by allowing the original structure to be seen, which is one of the reasons they are used in UK for historic structures. Ms. Aguilera asked Ms. McWilliams how the east elevation porch appeared when the house was designated (in 2000). Ms. McWilliams stated most of it was original and at that time it was a screened in porch. Prior to 2003, the only major alteration was moving the front door from south to north; the base foundation and garage were built in 1958. In 2003 the Commission approved changes to enclose the porch with Pella windows. Mr. Stashak pointed out that the proposed conservatory structure will extend 6 feet further to the east, thus making it a 12 x 12 foot room. Ms. McGee asked if that will make the roof line higher. Mr. Stashak replied that it will make it 6 inches higher, but that it would not be higher than the existing roof of the house and would not be seen from Grant Street. Mr. Shuff pointed out that it was remodeled in 2003, after designation. Mrs. McWilliams provided photos of the porch taken prior to the remodel for the Commission's review. Potting Shed/Laundry Room: On August 14, 2002, the LPC approved a request by the previous owners to add a new 5'x10' potting shed on the back (north elevation) of the house, at the corner where the house and Landmark Preservation Commission September 13, 2006 Meeting Draft Minutes Page 4 of 6 garage meet, facing east. The "diamond lite type windows" used in this addition were salvaged from the original house. The applicants would rebuild this non -historic addition for use as a laundry room. Its footprint would be enlarged by an additional 4 feet to the north. As proposed, e new foundation and steps would be built of block or stone, to a height similar to the historic foundation. Upon this foundation, brick half walls would be constructed, topped by a brick sill; above this would be divided openings filled with vertical beadboard siding and diamond pane transom windows. The current pedimented roof and classical pilasters would be removed, and the roof configuration changed to a low hipped roof. Mr. Stashak's conceptual drawing proposed using a hipped roof, with a very shallow 1:12 pitch. He recommends a copper roof with patina, rather than a rubber roof; the shallow pitch prohibits the use of wood shingles. He proposed using a red brick similar to the brick used in the more recent 1956 garage addition, rather than the original terracotta colored brick. Raising the floor of the addition is necessary to be level with the main structure, thus making it more usable. The historic windows would be reused on the interior wall between the house and laundry room. Shed: Mr. Stashak stated that a stand alone shed structure, located to the north of the home in the rear year, is also proposed to be remodeled, to match the conservatory, with a similar transparent glass design and copper frame. The brick on this building's foundation would match the red brick proposed for the conservatory. He described the structure as approximately 8 feet by 8 feet. Ms. McWilliams commented that she was unaware of the existence of this building, and asked Ms. Tunner if she knew of it; she did not. Apparently, this structure was built sometime after the home's designation, without LPC or staff review. Paint color. Currently, and likely historically, the wood elements of the home were painted white; Mr. Stashak asked for some leeway, stating they preferred a historically approved green pallet. The Commission asked if the applicant would scrape under eves for original colors. Even if the house trim was always white, a muted green color scheme could be appropriate. They would need color samples. Gutters and downspouts: Mr. Stashak stated that the owners would like to use copper'/ round gutters, rather than galvanized metal. The Commission agreed that copper would likely be appropriate on a house of this stature. COMMENTS: Mr. Shuff first addressed the east side porch, stating that it was located on a secondary, very visible facade, and that any changes would need to be carefully considered. He felt that the proposed changes would be acceptable, since the project approved in 2003 made significant changes to the original porch structure. The proposed conservatory would be fairly transparent. He felt the proposed changes were not too large. He asked for clarification of the proposal for the free standing building. Mr. Stashak explained it will have a similar brick base with solid glass above to resemble the conservatory look. Mr. Shuff felt that the proposed changes to the free- standing shed would have limited impact, and saw no problems. He further felt that the changes to the potting room/laundry room structure would not be significant. It is located where it is not readily visible on the back of the house, and its roof would not be above the existing garage or house. Ms. McGee agreed, stating that the essential character of the side porch has changed significantly from the original. She asked that the applicant provide a drawing of the proposed Landmark Preservation Commission September 13, 2006 Meeting Draft Minutes Page 5 of 6 conservatory from the street perspective, to see what the structure would look like extending 12 feet out from the building. Essentially she wants it to disappear; the choice of color for the framing should be selected to help it disappear rather than to stand out. She suggested that the applicants strive for a dressed down version — a very simple design more in character with the four -square house, rather than using finials and other elaborations. Ms. McGee agreed with Mr. Shuff that since the potting shed/laundry room was new, the changes were appropriate and would not affect the character of the house since they could not be seen from the street. What is being proposed may even be more appropriate for the style of house than what is existing. The 8x8 foot shed is not historic and the alterations will have minimal impact on the property. Ms. Tunner stated the changes made to the porch in 2003 were needed because the porch exit was unsafe, and since the porch was not original to the house, the Commission approved the changes. Ms. Donahue agreed with the previous comments, but also questioned the use of brick on the porch; currently there is no brick there. The current porch at least looks like a "screened in porch" — what's proposed is too heavy. The brick wainscoting makes the structure far more visible. Mr. Stashak agreed, stating that they could go with a design of wood foundation and beadboard siding. Ms. Donahue stated she likes the potting room/laundry room windows, and suggested using them on the east porch. Ms. Donahue asked why stop the windows with enough space to add another, and commented that it looked strange. The proportions of the existing window configuration better compliment the original house. The re -used historic windows on the potting shed/laundry room are actually upper floor windows, and what is proposed for this addition is actually better. Ms. Dix had questions regarding the copper flashing for the roof line, and replacing all of the other wood with copper. She also agreed with Ms. Donahue's point raised regarding the heavy appearance of the brick. Mr. Ballou would like to see the window sill height of the conservatory match the windows of the original house. Mr. Stashak said he will look into that, but cautioned that the sills in the original house are low. Ms. McGee pointed out that there are only 4 windows on the drawing of the conservatory, but currently the porch has 5 windows. The Commission agreed that they would prefer that the windows should use the current pattern and proportion as in the main house, even if that meant 5 or 6 windows would be used. It was also agreed that adding the brick walls would not be a good idea, and instead to do the portion above the base with bead board paneling. It was further agreed to use brick instead of the stone or block proposed in the current drawing, and that the color of the frame would be a muted green (as would the other trim elements on the house). Mr. Ballou asked about the beadboard in the laundry room. He suggested the brick be kept low, as it is currently. Mr. Stashak said they hope to put a bench on the left of the door, need at least 5 feet of wall to do so, so could not. They agreed transoms would be best. Mr. Stashak said the inspector suggested simple''/3 round rolled copper for gutter all around. Ms. McWilliams asked the board to comment upon the use of copper. Ms. McGee stated that as this house was one of the more grand houses, copper could have been an appropriate material. Staff will try to research if copper was historically used in Fort Collins. Ms. Tunner pointed out that the LPC approved copper flashing and gutters on the designated house on Peterson Street, directly Landmark Preservation Commission September 13, 2006 Meeting Draft Minutes Page 6 of 6 across from the library. Ms. Aguilera summed up the Commission's comments that copper would be the preference. Roof, gable vent and shingles: Mr. Stashak asked about the shingling in the gable end of the front of the house. The applicant would like to add a circular vent and different shingles. Photos of the house, dating to 1999, show a vent, which was removed by the previous owner. These photos also show that the singles were horizontal rectangles, such are now in existence. Ms. Aguilera said that there wouldn't be a problem with adding the vent back, if similar to the original. The applicants will look for early photos to better determine the original appearance of the vent and shingles. The roof should be wood shingle, or possibly a fiberglass shingle; Ms. McGee said there is a new fiberglass roof done by Echostar. Asphalt would not be appropriate. Mr. Stashak said that they will submit samples when they do submit the final proposal, along with full drawings. Front porch deck: Mr. Stashak's last question was about the front porch. The owners desire a more durable surface, and proposed a thin cut stone over the wood deck. The board did not agree with his suggestion. Ms. Tunner pointed out that the previous owners had received city matching funds to completely restore the porch. Mr. Ballou suggested a historic alterative would be covering the porch floor with a canvas. It was done often in the 1940's, and would become a paintable surface. DISCUSSION ITEMS: GHOST SIGN TOURS: Ms. Turner said she received feedback from the Cheyenne newspaper, requesting photos for an article about the upcoming Ghost Sign Tours in Fort Collins, and a request from Dave Fanning of KUNC, who wants to tape her tour for the radio. Ms. Tunner also showed close-up photos she took of the Owl Cigar sign. She anticipates a good turn out for the tours. She requested assistance from LPC members to lead tours. She put together a map to guide tours. Ms Dix, Ms. Donahue, and Ms. McGee volunteered to assist. Ms. Tunner also received a call from Ed Siegel who owns the north half of the Colorado building, 133-137 S. College Avenue, regarding his desire to designate his building, including the Damm's Bakery sign, when he will be in town October 61h Ms. Tunner also reported that the staff met on Monday with China Palace site owners. They decided that they will demolish the building, and rebuild a two story building, no more than 6 inches under the Owl sign. There will be a restaurant on the first floor, and second floor shell with eight foot ceilings and windows across the front. Historic photos show a line of transom windows on the original building, and the owners will allude to this in the new design. Second floor may be a loft or restaurant. Tentative plans are to make a patio for the Stone House Grill under the Owl Cigar ghost sign, pending on leasing negotiations. Adding a door to the patio through a brick wall, not using an existing historic window, is Ms. Tunner's recommendation, but it will depend on a cost comparison. A thin cable railing every 4 inches would be strung across the front of the patio for an unobtrusive safety railing. This hopefully should preserve the Owl Cigar sign for now. Meeting adjourned at 7:23 P.M. Minutes prepared by Natalie L. Allen, temporary secretary.