Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 11/14/2001LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting November 14, 2001 Minutes Council Liaison: Eric Hamrick (225-2343) Staff Liaison: Joe Frank (221-6376) Commission Chairperson: Per Hogestad (416-7285) SUMMARY OF MEETING: The LPC moved that the Colorado Historical Society continue to do the State Tax Credit Projects design review. The LPC moved to table a motion on the proposed window covering design ideas for the Fort Collins Museum, in order that the applicants may come back before the Commission to present further ideas. The Commission also commented on, and heard public input regarding the proposed addition to old Fort Collins High School, which will be used by Colorado State University as their new performing arts complex. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Commission called to order at precisely 5:30 p.m. Per Hogestad, Angela Milewski, Angie Aguilera, Agnes Dix, Bud Frick, Janet Ore and Myrne Watrous present. No absences. Karen McWilliams, Joe Frank, and Carol Tunner represented staff. GUESTS: Marian Pike, Liz Case, Phyllis and Wayne Schnader, Dick Hill, Rheba Massey, Ron Baker, Charles Hagemeister, Carol Stansfield, Tom and Connie McChesney, Sally Ketcham, Greg Smith, Laura Jones, Dick Dunn and Bill Kraus, citizens, for Fort Collins High School. Jenn Farrell, The Coloradoan, for Ft. Collins High School. Fred Kerst for 202 Remington Street. Eric Hamrick, Ft. Collins City Council Liaison. David Thermes, Brian Milnick, and Gary Petri, design committee, University Center for the Arts at Fort Collins High School. Jim White and Ron Baker, CSU Facilities. Kevin Murray, Empire Carpentry for 202 Remington Street, McHugh House. Mark Dodge, Exhibits Designer, and Jill Stillwell, Director, Ft. Collins Museum, 200 Mathews Street. AGENDA REVIEW: Designation of 511 West Mulberry Street postponed until a future meeting. STAFF REPORTS: Ms. McWilliams informed the Commission that the RFP has been sent out for the Buckingham Alta Vista & Andersonville Neighborhoods Survey. The consultant will hopefully start at the beginning of next year. Ms. Tunner informed the Commission that she is applying for a CLG grant that will pay the necessary fees for interested Commission members to attend the 2002 CPI conference. Conference registration will be submitted by Ms. Tunner, who requires notification by noon on November 15"'. Landmark Preservation Commission November 14, 2001 Meeting Minutes Page 2 Ms. McWilliams also informed the Commission that a structural assessment of the Romero House at 425 10"' Street is in progress and the results will be available in the next couple of weeks. COMMISSION MEMBERS' REPORTS: Ms. Milewski attended the October and November DDA meetings. During the October meeting the redevelopment of Steele's Market block was discussed. Currently, funding is being sought. The old bank on the southeast corner of Mountain and College also came under discussion. This bank has not been restored, though the property owners want to renovate the interior for future tenants. Funds are limited, however. There has been talk of tearing down the building. At the November meeting, the DDA members talked about the open house for the Northern Hotel, complimenting the appearance of the building and the work that the LPC has done. They also complimented the appearance of the new sign, though City Manager, John Fischbach, did not like that there was any sign at all, as it may be confusing to people coming through town. Discussion Item: The LPC discussed whether or not the Commission would accept responsibility for design review of the State Tax Credit Program. The LPC staff have inadequate time to do this, and recommends that the Colorado Historical Society continue doing the design review for the State Tax Credit program. Mr. Frank added that the LPC was previously uncomfortable with doing design review on interiors. Ms. Ore moved that the Colorado Historical Society continue to do the design review for State Tax Credit Projects. Seconded by Mr. Frick. Ms. Watrous asked if the LPC staff still doesn't have the time, as they now have additional work hours. Ms. Tunner and Ms. McWilliams replied that they still don't have time. Motion passed unanimously, 7-0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 12, 2001 minutes approved with no changes. DESIGNATION: 1) Designation of 511 West Mulberry Street postponed until a future meeting. CURRENT REVIEW: 1) 202 Remington, McHugh House: Kevin Murray, of Empire Carpentry, presenting. The applicant has provided a letter explaining that due to a leaking porch roof, work was done though no permissions were obtained beforehand. The applicant seeks approval of the work already completed, including reroofing the porch and repair of the porch roof balustrade. They will replace the base of the posts with redwood, and add more balusters to meet code. This balustrade was probably from the 1920s and 1930s, though much of it was replaced in the 1970s. • Landmark Preservation Commis • November 14, 2001 Meeting Minutes Page 3 Public input. None. Ms. Milewski moved that the LPC approve the roof and balustrade work that has already been completed at 202 Remington Street. Mr. Frick seconded the motion, which passed unanimously, 7-0. 2) 200 Mathews, Ft. Collins Museum. Presented by Mark Dodge, Exhibits Designer and Jill Stillwell, Director. The applicants propose the replacement of the panels in the front windows at 200 Mathews Street, Fort Collins Museum. These are the wood covered windows that currently have the black arrow icons (Folsum Points) painted on them, which were placed there in 1993. They would like to replace the plywood panels with a temporary polyvinyl cover, and look to do an updated cosmetic re -do of these panels, as funding is not currently available to replace them with windows. They propose putting in panels with historic, brightly colored, photographic images. They are not attempting to make them look original, but wish to do this as a temporary fix until funding becomes available to reopen the windows. The polyvinyl will be Y< inch thick and will be able to stand the local weather and heat. They will probably fade within a few years, but it is hoped that before then a more permanent solution will become available. The images will have a matte finish, and include Mr. Luther Remington, Frank Miller (with a bear), the Arapahoe council tree, the trolley, an oil well, and a Poudre Canyon scene. The LPC asked if there are other color alternatives? Mr. Dodge replied that they had considered black and white, and have been working with graphics artists, looking for a fun way to deal with the problem. Mr. Hogestad expressed his concern that the interesting and colorful images will compete too much with the architecture itself. Ms. Dix agreed, saying that it might be preferable for the colors to be more sympathetic with the rusts and reds in the sandstone, and not quite as garish. Another possibility that was considered was to just paint them one color, but the artists thought that it makes the museum look like a boarded up building, and they want it to look like a living building. The cost would be around $1,800. Ms. Milewski commented that the plywood panels currently there are not sympathetic with the building — they look like a boarded up building. Ms. Milewski said that she likes the images and colors and believes that it is a good temporary measure. Ms. Ore added that the proposed images and colors will not harm the building. Mr. Frick said that he thought it would be better if there were a border around the arches the width of a window frame — a graphic frame that would separate Landmark Preservation Commission November 14, 2001 Meeting Minutes Page 4 the colors from the building. In this way they won't have the wild colors butting right up against the stone of the building. Mr. Hogestad said that this would define an opening, but would leave the extreme colors. Public input: Carol Stansfield, a citizen suggested that they take six characters from the history of Ft. Collins and make it look like they are inside the building looking out, and put the image of window panes over them. Rheba Massey asked if they can't use the same images but with sepia tone graphics. This would blend in well with the time period and character of the building, and there are many sepia photos in buildings around town. Ms. Stillwell replied that there are probably as many ideas as there are people in Ft. Collins. Ms. Dix asked what would be the probable life span of the images? Mr. Dodge replied that it will be about 5 years. They have discussed the sepia tone idea. However, they feel it was not the best solution because their museum is more than a history museum, but addresses life today as well. Mr. Tom McChesney, citizen, said that he thinks sepia tones seem better, as more than half of those attending seem to be opposed to the proposed bright colors. It doesn't seem right to put in the colors in the hope that they'll soon fade. Mr. Frick suggested muting the colors but adding life to the building by putting bright colored banners or flags nearby. Ms. Aguilera added that banners are often used for advertising and will show that the museum is there and alive. The more the images blend in the less noticeable they are. Ms. Stillwell replied that the City has a rule that banners can only be up for five days, and so banners are not possible for a longer -term design. Mr. Frick moved that the LPC approve the polyvinyl contemporary historical photographic renderings, though in more muted (or dustier) colors than proposed, and that the panels have a two or three inch dark green frame, like window frames around them. The panels must be adhered to the existing plywood panels, and not into the fabric of the building. Seconded by Ms. Dix. Motion opposed unanimously, 7-0. Ms. Milewski moved that the LPC table the motion so that the applicants may come back before the Commission again to present further ideas. Seconded by Ms. Ore and approved unanimously, 7-0. Ms. Ore said that there was no problem with the polyvinyl panels with a surrounding frame to accentuate the openings, but color was the issue. Landmark Preservation CommissiDlf • November 14, 2001 Meeting Minutes Page 5 2) 1400 Remington, Ft. Collins High School — Conceptual Schematic Concert Hall Addition. Presented by Jim White of Colorado State University and Slaterpaull Architects. Carol Tunner, staff, made a presentation. CSU is proposing a design for a new concert hall and arts center addition to the old Fort Collins High School. CSU owns the building, which is now the University Center for the Arts Project. The 21,700 square foot addition will cover the 1953 gymnasium addition on the north end of the building and will project forward to between 80 and 120 feet from the front of the historic facade. Staff has several issues regarding this proposed addition: Designation Status: The building was designated in 1994 as a Ft. Collins Landmark. The entire building was included for its high artistic value, representation of a type, association with significant events and historic trend in Ft. Collins and its contribution to the Laurel School State and National Register Districts. Architecture and Significance: The 1953 addition was well designed with Classical Revival features to be compatible in regards to massing, historic materials, features, size, scale, proportion, and window fenestration and repetition with the original building. The proposed addition jeopardizes the gymnasium addition's contributing status. Setting: The setting of the school's historic front yard is significant for its prominent location on a full city block street with visual sense of open space. The new addition would obscure the historic building and would draw attention to itself rather than enhancing the historic building. Ms. Tunner showed a PowerPoint slide show on features of the 1953 addition and various views of the high school from north and south approaches. The applicant, Jim White, of CSU was joined by project managers Bill Krause, Greg Smith, and Slaterpaull architects, Gary Petri, Brian Milnick and David Thermes. Mr. White, CSU Facilities architect, described the Historic Building Review Board (HBRB) of CSU as having been formed by a Memorandum of Understanding with the Colorado Historical Society (CHS). The CHS recognizes the majority vote of the HBRB, and that committee voted in favor of the addition. He added that the proposed concert hall recognizes the importance of the historic nature of the building, but also takes the needs of the community into consideration. Gary Petrie, said that he did not start out with a preconceived notion of where the addition would go. Upon considering the options, he believed that the Landmark Preservation Commission November 14, 2001 Meeting Minutes Page 6 proposed option offered the best solution, as it allows them to group the performance venues of the building. Even if this proposed addition doesn't meet all the Standards, they believe that the overall design proposed is the best one. They recognize that this is an important building to the city and neighborhood at large. The performance hall, because of its importance to the community, must be important in its own right. The different parts of the building can support each other, and the front lawn of the complex is the stage for the whole building. Mr. Brian Milnick, of Slaterpaull Architects, added that the view from across the park is the image that the people of the city have of the building. The image also includes the landscape around the building. Because of the location of the parking (across College Ave.) there are other issues in the design than just the elements of the building itself. The open space of the park is the only part of the surrounding area that is not developed residential. The entrance court will be in front of the 1924 building, and they want to keep that open. They feel they are being respectful of the feeling of the park by the placement of their addition. Also, the design allows the performance venues to be grouped together, and the proposed placement of the addition will allow it all to be served by the existing 1953 lobby. They feel that the 1953 building is rather like a second building that is connected to the 1924 building by a breezeway. The 1953 building has elongated the building, being barely set back (approx. 3 ft.). The architects do not feel that the 1953 building was not set back enough. Also the proposed flyspace above the theater is indicative of a theater, as all theaters have a flyspace. The addition of the 1953 building, elongating the 1924 building, makes it all look rather like a train. The addition will reinforce the courtyard, and will be an attractive solution. Ms. Watrous indicated that the proposed addition is too high. The height of the theater flysection is 72 ft., while the height of the less massive 1924 tower is approx. 90 ft. Mr. Frick added that the LPC designated the train. They like the train, from North to South. Regarding the parking and connectivity, people will see the front of the building from the parking area, and will get the romantic feeling of the entire structure regardless of where the entrance of the addition is. Mr. Milnick said that, regarding the streetscape, trees are as important as the bricks and mortar to the appearance of the building. Moving the mass of the addition would require redesigning the interactive elements of all the performance venues. Mr. Frick said that they have proposed taking a designated structure and covering it up with a more massive structure. Landmark Preservation Commisst • November 14, 2001 Meeting Minutes Page 7 Ms. Watrous asked what would be used for building materials. She was informed that they are still early on in the design process, but they will probably be using brick and precast concrete to simulate the stone. They won't be using limestone like the 1953 addition. Red brick will be used, though whether to match or depart from existing brick color is still under consideration. They will probably be differentiating by at least a shade. Currently available bricks are also a different size, but this will not be too noticeable until you're within 20 ft. of the building. Mr. Hogestad said that the massing itself is not conceptual any longer. The position of the proposed addition is what is under conceptual review. Ms. Watrous asked if the architects are asking the LPC to ignore a good many of the Secretary of Interior Design Standards. Mr. Petrie replied "yes." The proposed design is looking at the needs of the whole structure, not looking to satisfy all the design standards to the point of enforcing mediocrity. He added that, in some cases a bold move needs to be taken. Ms. Ore replied that the Commission has to go by their own guidelines. Ms. Watrous asked if this addition would jeopardize future CHS grants. Ms. Ore said that the 1953 addition has physical and historical integrity, and it hasn't lost that. Mr. Hogestad asked if it was possible to move the addition further north. Mr. Petrie replied that if that is the case, they would have to create a corridor to connect the different parts of the performance areas. Mr. Hogestad said that the main problem is that the proposed design obscures designated parts of the building, but that he understands the design and function part. Mr. Milnick replied that the 1953 piece does not frame the courtyard of the building, and does not do justice to that particular issue. Mr. Frick said that what has been presented does not appear to be a conceptual design — This looks like a final design because the LPC has no alternatives to look at. Mr. Hogestad suggested the design be re-examined based on some of the comments that have been aired. Ms. Ore said that if the addition is sifting in front of the 1953 building, it doesn't enhance the 1924 building, it competes with it. Landmark Preservation Commission November 14, 2001 Meeting Minutes Page 8 Mr. Milnick said that they do not have the same love of the 1953 building that the Commission has. Ms. Ore replied that it's a building contributing to the National Register District. Mr. Frick asked them to consider the Secretary of Interiors Standard No. 9. Ms. Watrous added that there is no courtyard, and has never been a courtyard. There is a vista just like there is at the north end of town with the old Power Plant. The Power Plant and Ft. Collins High School are like the bookmarks of old Fort Collins. She added that in September, the Planning and Zoning Board refused to place a homeless shelter in the back of the old Power Plant because it would interfere with the historical nature of the building. Ms. Aguilera added that appears to be a decision between time periods. The applicants have chosen to see that the 1924 part of the building is more important than the 1953 part of the building. The LPC does not have the latitude to make that choice. The entire building is significant, even though this may make the job of the applicants harder. Mr. Petrie replied that their choice was between the 1953 part and the future. The preservation of the whole complex depends on it having a vital new use. Ms. Aguilera restated that for the LPC, the entire building is significant. This makes their job harder. Mr. Frick added that, luckily, they are not constrained by a small site. Mr. Frank clarified that Ch. 14 of the Landmark Preservation Code gives the LPC authority under Section 14-55 to waive the Secretary of Interiors Standards. Ms. Milewski said she does not feel comfortable with the proposed solution, recognizing that the Commission has not seen any other solutions. In concept, Ms. Milewski has a problem of the new addition being in front of the 1924 building, and completely covering up the 1953 addition. Mr. Hogestad said that the proposed addition will destroy the historic fabric of the 1953 building, and that he still wants to support the 1924 addition. He said moving the addition forward would be okay, it needs to be out front, but he is concerned about destroying designated historic fabric. Landmark Preservation Commis • November 14, 2001 Meeting Minutes Page 9 Public comment; Mr. Tom McChesney, citizen, said that there is a large area in the back to work with. The best option would be to put it behind, on Pitkin Street. Ms. Carol Stansfield, citizen, said that there is a beautiful entrance to Ft. Collins High School. Why not use that entrance and put something back behind the 1924 part. Mr. Richard Dunn, citizen, said that the Slaterpaull architects have said that the University did not hire them to do multiple designs. But that's where you do alternate studies. He asked where the alternate studies were. He also said the main problem is that the fly on the auditorium is such a major portion of the building. Could they use the gymnasium? He noted the model and perspectives were not accurate to the site dimensions. Ms. Rheba Massey, citizen, referred to a statement made by Mr. Petrie about the new addition not competing with the old addition but becoming a complement. Like the new library and the new performing arts center downtown, the new addition has to make a statement. In Ft. Collins, the historic building is the statement. She would like the historic building to be the statement, not the new building. To her, in the design that was presented, the addition makes too much of a statement. Mr. Petrie commented that the concert hall is being funded by donations. There is at least one major donor and some less significant donors. Because of this, there is some expectation that the building make at least some statement. Ms. Sally Ketcham, citizen, said the she would like serious thought given to the designation of the 1953 addition. The LPC has a choice of function over design. Function is what is driving the proposed addition not preservation of integrity, and she doesn't see any relevancy of the proposed addition to the 1924 building. Ms. Watrous asked if the major donors wouldn't want to donate to something that the public likes? Ms. Ore added that she does not see how the LPC has any room to maneuver when violating their own standards and guidelines. Ms. Dix said that there have got to be other alternatives, that this is not the only solution. Mr. Hogestad added that the Denver Central Library was a little, single -story library. Then, a major library addition was done to it. It is multi -story and yet Landmark Preservation Commission November 14, 2001 Meeting Minutes Page 10 they can co -exist and they do it nicely and gracefully. He does not see why this addition can't also be this way. Other Business: Regarding the Design Assistance Program: Ms. Ore asked that the LPC consider how to qualify the applicants, and how to remove them. What are the requirements for the carpenter list, for the designer list, etc.? She added that there are federal standards on these things that can be used. It would be nice if more designers would get on the list. Applicants should also have to reapply after three years. Mr. Frank asked that a re-examination of the DAP consultants list be put on the LPC Work Plan for 2002. Mr. Frick brought up a concern about Young's pasture, and that a development review sign has been placed there. Ms. McWilliams said that she will request that the developer give a presentation to the LPC. As far as new construction near a historic area, the LPC has no authority, though in this case the Sheeley addition neighbors may have something to say. Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Minutes prepared by Connie Merrill, Secretary.