Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 11/13/2006Landmark Preservation Commission November 13, 2006 Meeting Page 1 of 4 LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting November 13, 2006 Minutes Council Liaison: David Roy (407-7393) Staff Liaison: Joe Frank (221-6376) Commission Chairperson: Angie Aguilera. (377-4217) SUMMARY OF MEETING: 133-137 S. College was approved for rehab/restoration of the store front. 241 Jefferson was approved for the changes made to the structure. 511 S. Whitcomb was approved for local designation. Members discussed the Loan Program guidelines and scoring. They also discussed the elimination of the Demo/Alt. Review Process. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Commission called to order by Chairwoman Angie Aguilera with a quorum present at 5:30 p.m. at 281 N. College Ave., Fort Collins, Colorado. Alan Ballou, Agnes Dix, Heather Donahue, Earen Russell, Ian Shuff were present. Alyson McGee was excused. Carol Tunner, Karen McWilliams, and Timothy Wilder represented City staff. GUESTS: Elliott Smith; CSU Student, auditing the meeting; Doran Geise, Heath Construction, Preconstruction Manager; for 133-137 S. College; North half of the Colorado Building; Wally Walburg, owner of 241 Jefferson; and Sondra Carson, owner of 511 S. Whitcomb. AGENDA REVIEW: No Agenda Changes APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The September 27, 2006 minutes were approved as submitted. STAFF REPORTS: Ms. Tunner mentioned that there were five applicants for the Landmark Preservation Commission. COMMISSION MEMBER REPORTS: Alan Ballou attended the DDA meeting for the month of November. The discussion items included: the China Palace remodeling and the Owl Cigar ghost sign. Carl Glaser, Architect, has also applied for a grant to restore his storefront at 215-217 Jefferson. PUBLIC INPUT: Chairwoman Aguilera asked if anyone present wished to address items within the purview of the Commission, if the item did not appear on the agenda. There were no comments. Landmark Preservation Commission November 13, 2006 Meeting Page 2 of 4 CURRENT REVIEW: 133-137 South College Avenue, the North half of the Colorado Building- Rehab/Restore the 133 S. College store front, Conceptual and Final Review Doran Geise, pre -construction manager, Heath Construction (Exterior Review). Ms. Tunner explained the background from her staff report, which summarizes what will be restored and/or rehabilitated on the storefront of 137 S. College. The storefront will be mostly restored to 1942 with a few exceptions relating to the Smart Fashions sign in the center of the front transom area and also etched on the glass transom of the door. The wonderful terrazzo entrance will remain even though it appears to have been a part of a 1960's remodel. It has achieved individual significance in its own right. Public Input: None Ms. Russell motioned to approve repairing the North half of the Colorado Building and rehab/restoring the 137 South College storefront exterior. Mr. Ballou seconded the motion which passed 6-0. 241 Jefferson Street — Conceptual and Final Review — Wally Walburg, owner. Ms. Tunner read the background of the building from her staff report and passed around colored pictures of work that has been done and work still needed to be done. Members discussed that they liked rear entrances that are people friendly as this one now is. They also discussed the recovering of the existing awning which will be administratively approved by Ms. Tunner. The Commission did not think that it needed a free valance under the existing frame. Mr. Walburg explained matching windows to the rear windows of his adjacent dwelling addition. He felt the double French doors were compatible and more useful to the new reuse of the building as a retail shop instead of a car service center. Public Input: None Mr. Shuff motioned to approve the changes made to the front and back of 241 Jefferson Street; Ms. Donahue seconded the motion which passed 6-0. DESIGNATION: 511 South Whitcomb — Sondra Carson, owner. Karen McWilliams discussed the significance and physical Integrity, architecture, history, and her recommendation for designation of the property at 511 S. Whitcomb. Ms. Carson mentioned that the kitchen and most of the glass/windows are original. Public Input: None Landmark Preservation Commission November 13, 2006 Meeting Page 3 of 4 Ms. Dix motioned to accept designation of 511 South Whitcomb; Mr. Shuff seconded the motion which passed 6-0. DISCUSSION ITEM: Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program (Discussion of Review Process) — Timothy Wilder, City Planner Mr. Wilder handed out the Loan Application form which has not changed. He also handed out Loan Guidelines, which were reviewed with the members by e- mail. Guidelines: 1) On page 3, eligibility, cost, and improvements were added to make the guidelines more clear. For example: no landscaping, but structural elements such as roof and the roofing system could be included. 2) Painting routine. Ms. Aguilera mentioned the necessity of painting and significance to the project. A concern with the program is making the project just about painting the exterior of the building. Another issue with paint is stripping brick — paint destroys bricks by holding moisture. Ms. Russell brought up that if paint removal is not funded and/or managed then the building may be damaged because brick stripping can be very harmful if not done properly. It was decided to make painting a match element only. 3) Chairwoman Aguilera asked about code items such as sprinkler systems. Sprinkler systems are allowed as a match. 4) Porches are another concern. Making sure the owner does not just build a porch but reconstructs it to historic time period of the building. Instead of the word "addition" change to "reconstruction". 5) Ms. Russell mentioned storm windows. Mr. Wilder said the priority is to keep original windows; storm windows may be needed on the interior. Scoring 1) Mr. Shuff finds the system to work pretty well — the general order is in place based on funds allowed. 2) Ms. McWilliams said, "...evaluate each property on highest level of designation..." 3) Then the discussion continued about historic significance versus architectural significance. 4) Ms. Aguilera mentioned reviewing and bringing a discussion or partial decision ahead of time to the LPC meeting. But other members do find the discussions at meeting very important to the process. 5) The point system was also brought up. Ms. Donahue said, "...rather than individually rating each property, assign one number to the property..." It was decided to keep the process as is, except weight the match and significance criteria lower. Many items were discussed but these were the major points throughout the discussion of the loan program. Landmark Preservation Commission November 13, 2006 Meeting Page 4 of 4 OTHER BUSINESS: Demolition/Alteration Review Process — Karen McWilliams Members made comments about the advantages and disadvantages of the process. Commission members were reluctant to endorse any changes to the process. Ms. McWilliams explained that the changes were due to the city's BFO process. The goal for the LPC is to encourage historic preservation and to educate people to promote the restoration and rehabilitation of buildings. Public Input: None Ms. Russell recommended that City Council adopt the proposed staff changes made to the Demolition/Alteration Review Process (Section 14 of the City Code). Ms. Donahue seconded the motion, which passed 6-0. Ms. Aguilera asked that the minutes reflect that the motion was made reluctantly, and this addition was supported by all of the other commission members. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted by Allison Taylor, Secretary C��