Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 06/24/1998LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting June 24, 1998 Council Liaison: Scott Mason Staff Liaison: Joe Frank Commission Chairperson: Jennifer Carpenter (225-0960) SUMMARY OF MEETING: The LPC recommended approval of the non-consensual designation of property owned by Progressive Old Town Square, LLC, and 238 East Mountain, LLC, located within the Old Town Fort Collins Historic District. The LPC approved the proposed sign for DRUMS, 256 Linden Street. The LPC took part in the conceptual review of the Preston Farm plans. The Commission discussed some of the shortcomings of the Demolition/Alteration Review process. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Ms. Carpenter called the meeting to order at 5:39 p.m., at 281 North College Avenue. Commission members Per Hogestad, Bud Frick, Angela Milewski, Rande Pouppirt and James Tanner were present. Karen McWilliams, Carol Tunner and Joe Frank represented Staff. GUESTS: Clark Bennett, business owner, DRUMS at 256 Linden Street; Stan Whitaker, Western Property Advisors, Inc. and Eldon Ward, Cityscape for conceptual review of the Preston Farm project; Mary Humstone, citizen; John Albright, citizen; Michael Lohman, owner, 713 Mathews Street. AGENDA REVIEW: Ms. McWilliams added, under Other Business, the discussion of the demolition/alteration review process and a request for a waiver of a portion of that process for 713 Mathews. Mr. Frick requested that they discuss delegating a new Downtown Development Authority liaison from the LPC, because his term has ended. Ms. Carpenter wanted to discuss having someone from the LPC attend the Colorado State University, Historic Building Review Board meetings in the future. Ms. Tunner suggested that they discuss these items when the new LPC members are present. STAFF REPORTS: Ms. Tunner introduced George Lyons, new Commission member. Ms. McWilliams announced that the East Side architectural survey has been completed and has proved to be extremely useful in the office. The survey of the West Side is now underway. COMMISSION MEMBERS' REPORTS: Ms. Carpenter passed around a letterfrom Historic Fort Collins Development Corporation, regarding plans for the Preston Farm site. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None. CURRENT DESIGN REVIEW: Landmark Preservation Commission June 24, 1998 Meeting Minutes Page 2 256 Linden Street Signage for Business "Drums" Ms. Tunner explained that Mr. Bennett, property owner, had proposed revising a 2 by 7 foot lighted box sign for his business, Drums. She stated that the building was a non- contributing structure, but the design of the sign should still be compatible with the historic character of the district. The applicant would like to reuse a sign, which exists at a different location within a suburban shopping center. The proposed sign is single -faced internally illuminated with a terra cotta colored aluminum cabinet. The unit would be mounted flush to the wall and is five inches deep. Horizontal fluorescent tubes (800 MA CW/HO) provide lighting. The sign background is brown with large cream colored letters. The sign would be mounted on the Linden Street side of the building, in the traditional signband. The applicant confirmed that only the letters would be illuminated and the background color was brown. Ms. Tunner explained Staff's recommendations. She said that the sign meets guidelines #51, to align signs approximately with others on the block when feasible and guideline #52, the sign should be subordinate in size to other fagade elements. It also meets guideline #57, which addresses illumination and explains that the background should be opaque and that only the letters are illuminated. Staff recommended guideline #56, which suggested indirect lighting for signs. Ms. Tunner questioned if the sign satisfied guideline #53, which suggested selecting a sign that was compatible in color and material with the fagade of the building. Staff recommended indirect lighting, such as gooseneck lamps found elsewhere in Old Town. She reviewed an option that the sign box could be repainted terra cotta or brown, like the sign background, or white to match the building. This way it would still create depth, shadow and a frame around it, but not be as strong of a contrast. Another option would be to remove the sign face from the box. Mr. Bennett said that he would consider that option, because it was a temporary sign. Another option would be to build a frame around it out of wood -brick molding trim. Mr. Bennett explained that he considered the sign as temporary and wanted it to attract business. He currently has a banner in the window, but it does show through because of the glare. Mr. Pouppirt asked if he had considered temporary vinyl letters in the window. Mr. Bennett said that the actual name for the business was Colorado Drum and Percussion and he would eventually like to get a bigger, nicer sign to display it. Mr. Tanner asked about the other box signs in the area and whether they had a formal policy for box signs. Ms. Tunner explained the box sign next -door as a reuse after the flood destroyed the same shop on the south side of town. It was removed from the box and since it is painted white and does not have a frame, it blends into the building. The LPC discussed how compatible the proposed sign was with the building. Mr. Tanner said that the building was plain and square and it was a plan and simple sign. Mr. Tanner thought that they could work with the color of the sign and frame in order to make it not too obtrusive. He added that an elaborate sign on that building would look strange. Mr. Hogestad asked if they would consider just a sign panel, without the interior lighting. Mr. Tanner reviewed, only the letters would be illuminated, not the background. Ms. Milewski said that she did not have Landmark Preservation Commission June 24, 1998 Meeting Minutes Page 3 an issue with the sign panel itself, but would like to see illumination kept down. Mr. Tanner asked if the applicant would consider an external source of light. Mr. Bennett said that he liked the idea of gooseneck lamps. Mr. Frick suggested that they could use gooseneck lamps with a temporary vinyl banner. Mr. Tanner moved to allow the installation of the existing box sign in the existing color, with the proviso that if it were illuminated, then it be illuminated from the exterior, indirectly and to be administratively approved. Mr. Hogestad seconded the motion. Mr. Frick made a friendly amendment that the box be painted the same color of the building, to make it disappear more into the building. Mr. Hogestad did not accept the friendly amendment. The motion passed five to one. (Yeas: Tanner, Frick, Hogestad, Milewski, Carpenter) (Nays: Pouppirt) DISCUSSION ITEMS: Non -Consensual Designation of Proper Owned by Progressive Old Town Square LLC and 238 East Mountain LLC, Located Within the Old Town Fort Collins Historic District Ms. McWilliams explained that there was a discrepancy between the written legal description used to create the Old Town Fort Collins Historic District and the accompanying map used to delineate the district boundaries. This designation would amend the boundaries to include those properties located with the District and not currently designated, reconciling the legal description to that intended. Ms. McWilliams explained that City Council, at their June 16, 1998 meeting adopted Ordinance 102, 1998, which amended Ordinance 170, 1979 by the local landmark designation of the public rights -of -way and other properties owned by the City of Fort Collins and the Downtown Development Authority located within the Old Town District. This was done to reconcile the original legal and illustrative descriptions. This request for the non-consensual designation of properties owned by Progressive Old Town Square, LLC and 238 East Mountain, LLC, and located within the District would complete the process of reconciling the illustrated boundaries of the District with the legal description. Ms. McWilliams said that these properties meet the criteria for designation, having architectural, historical and/or geographical importance to the Old Town Fort Collins Historic District and to the citizens of Fort Collins. Ms. McWilliams referred to the map of the District. Ms. Carpenter reviewed a letter from the property owners, which stated that while they could not sign the designation form hey are not opposed. Mr. Frick moved that we recommend the non-consensual local landmark designation Landmark Preservation Commission June 24, 1998 Meeting Minutes Page 4 amending the boundaries of the Old Town Fort Collins Historic District, to include all properties owned by Progressive Old Town Square, LLC and 238 East Mountain, LLC, located within the perimeter of the Old Town Fort Collins Historic District, for their historical, architectural and/or geographical importance. Mr. Tanner seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. (6-0) Preston Farm — Conceptual Review Ms. McWilliams explained that Mr. Whitaker, LGT and Mr. Ward came to the LPC to discuss plans for the Preston Farm. She said that the Preston Farm has been determined to be eligible for designation on the National Register of Historic Places, and as a local landmark. LGT has an approved preliminary plan for the property. They are now proposing to make some changes to those plans, which opens them up for review. Mr. Whitaker showed the plans that were approved by the City two years ago. The property is zoned for shopping, employment and residences. They have since sold off the residential portion. Timberwood Drive is being reviewed by the Engineering Department and was planned to be built in July. Mr. Whitaker described the layout of the retail and office buildings on the site and how they relate to the Preston Farm buildings. The office buildings are proposed to be designed with sloped roofs, brick and stone material with timbers, and have a rustic feel. The brick, stone and timber would be carried throughout the site. They would insist that the hotel proposed for east of Grifford Court use these same design elements. The proposed shopping center has been taken out of the plans, and drive -by retail or single user retail has been designed in. The single story buildings to the east on Frontage Road would not have flat roofs, but the office buildings to the southeast would be flat roofed. Mr. Ward added that these buildings would have a peaked element on the rooftop, to screen the mechanical units. Ms. Carpenter asked if they had any elevations to show what they would look like. Mr. Frick asked if they were talking about a false front fagade. Mr. Whitaker said that they have decided not to move the granary. He said that the granary seems to be the most visible and unique structure. He showed where it was located on the plan. They will have to stabilize it and the area around it used for drainage, in order to protect the buildings. Ms. Carpenter asked what the engineers calculated as the depth of the drainage. Mr. Whitaker said that there are still some variations to the depth depending on how wide the area would be. Mr. Ward explained that the depth would be roughly three feet below the existing grade. He said that the existing ponds and drainage of the system dictated the depth. They are trying to spread the drainage out, instead of keeping it small and deeper. They would also like to design a smoother, less pronounced low area and explore how it works with the pedestrian paths through the area. How the development relates to the historic structures and the viewshed is still also being worked out. Mr. Whitaker said that the drainage works now, it is just shaping the pond to make it the most unobtrusive as possible. He explained that a couple were interested in purchasing and rehabilitating the old farmhouse property. They are also interested in purchasing Lot 3. Mr. Ward explained the design of a central spine through the site, similar Landmark Preservation Commission June 24, 1998 Meeting Minutes Page 5 to Mountain Avenue or downtown College Avenue. They have also been evolving a formal viewshed to the farmhouse and a more farmstead, rustic landscape approach. Mr. Hogestad asked if the right -in cut was still in the plan. Mr. Whitaker said that was an important element. He added that they scaled down the parking and added more landscaping and scenery. Mr. Whitaker pointed out the footprint of the 11,000 square foot building to the west of the farmhouse. He said that if the building was to be built smaller, they would start to the southwest. It was proposed as a restaurant, but they are keeping it flexible at the moment. Mr. Frick said that he was concerned about the depth of the detention pond and how it would relate to the buildings. Mr. Whitaker said it would need to be below the grade of the granary and they would try to widen the landscaping to the northeast, but the engineers are still examining the structure. He added that they are recognizing pedestrian movement close to and in and out of the structures. Mr. Ward said that they would like to balance smoother slopes with the drainage capacity. He envisioned some steeper slopes, which were less immediate to the building in order to make more gentle slopes somewhere else. Mr. Hogestad said that the slope should be comfortable to walk on. Mr. Ward explained that some slopes would be unwalkable and the gentler areas and the rest of the topography would create a delineated path with an immediate path to the granary. He assured Mr. Hogestad that all of the buildings would be accessible by foot. Mr. Whitaker explained that the house was planned to be restored according to photo - documentation and retrofitted to serve as an office for a State Farm Insurance agency. He added that he does not know about the plans for the other structures associated with the farmhouse. Mr. Frank asked about drainage in the parking lot. Mr. Whitaker said that they had used the worst case scenario to calculate the drainage plans and they want to protect the buildings. Ms. Milewski said that she would like to see some flat space around the buildings for access and to create some horizontal distance for the drainage away from the foundations. Mr. Whitaker said that they would do that on all four sides with about six or eight feet of horizontal distance before it slopes down. Ms. Carpenter asked about the cross section for the northeast comer and Mr. Ward said that they have not completed it yet. Ms. Carpenter discussed the landscape architecture of the farmstead and talked about appropriate plants for screening and hedgerows, like lilacs. She also asked about the existing trees. The existing trees along with addition evergreens and ornamentals are included in the plans. Mr. Ward said that they don't know the fate of the cottonwoods along County Road 9 because of the planned road improvements. Ms. Carpenter asked if there was a way to block the view of the parking lot and not the farmhouse. Mr. Ward said that you want to block things to about four feet or forty-two inches high. Ms. Humstone commented on the views and said that the striking view of the farmstead has always been of the granary. She does not want to see the landscaping around the parking lot interfere with the view to the granary. Mr. Ward said that deciduous trees do Landmark Preservation Commission June 24, 1998 Meeting Minutes Page 6 not really block the view, while conifers are planned near the newer buildings. This would help keep the viewsheds open. Mr. Whitaker said that they may move the access point to the south, which would use less pavement and shrubs would be planted further away from the granary on the north and west side. He believes this would be an improvement, but they had just brainstormed the idea the previous night. Secondly, Ms. Humstone commented on the design of the new buildings, particularly around the east half of the site around the farm. She said that the massive stone and timber reminded her of Yellowstone Park, more than a farmstead. Mr. Whitaker said that probably the most dominant material would be the brick, with sloped roofs. She asked if there was something in the plans which addressed compatibility between the new buildings and the farm architecture. Mr. Whitaker asked what design elements that would include. He thought that the character of the house was wood siding with a sloped roof. Mr. Ward explained that the timbers were not rough, but rather milled timber and the stone is like what is on the back of the building now. He described the design elements as similar to the transition you see from the library neighborhood with its Victorian -era houses to the Old Town business district. The forms and materials should be compatible, but not identical. Mr. Whitaker added that wood siding would not be a good siding material for these buildings and brick would be closer to that era and stone is already in the house. They are also trying to avoid precast material, which is too modem. Ms. Carpenter suggested that the architects on the LPC address this issue when they bring comments back up to the Commission for further discussion. John Albright addressed the scale of the buildings and the transition of the type and size of buildings across the site. He said that the Yellowstone style buildings could be friendly, but not necessarily compatible. He also asked what material would be used for screening to hide the mechanical equipment. Mr. Ward explained that they used a solid metal decking. It would be screened unless you were above it in an airplane. He talked about the decorative details on the Harmony School and how certain elements were incorporated into the Diamond Shamrock and also in the school addition. They are still looking for such a detail at the Preston Farm. Mr. Albright asked about the windows and said that the black windows on the Harmony School would not be compatible. Mr. Ward said that they have not gotten to the windows yet, but they would use modem materials. They all agreed that the windows would be an important element. The conceptual review was then brought back up to the Commission for discussion. Mr. Frick discussed finding design elements that would be appropriate and not come across like rebuilding Willliamsburg, Virginia in the West. Mr. Hogestad commented on the buildings' articulation and suggested that they find a way to break up the larger buildings into smaller pieces. He also did not like the idea of large timbers in the design because it was not really compatible here in this setting. Ms. Carpenter agreed with their comments and liked the idea of using a repeated detail. Mr. Hogestad said that they could use a small feature, like used in the Harmony School, which still really comes through. Ms. Landmark Preservation Commission June 24, 1998 Meeting Minutes Page 7 Carpenter agreed that a small feature from the Preston Farm could be carried through. She said that some notes were made on the preliminary plans, which would also be appropriate for the latest plan. Mr. Pouppirt said that the depression of the drainage area could be a real asset and help give the area a parklike quality. He said it would probably be a more desirable place to wander through. He added that they are saving the farm, but at the same time large buildings will surround it and it's really not a farm anymore. Ms. Milewski said that the plans have seen a great improvement and they are really starting to embrace the farm. Ms. Carpenter commented that she thought it was important to keep it as flat and as farmlike as possible, because there is so little of it left. It is an historic farmstead and they are already struggling to keep the association between the house and the rest of the buildings. She added that she understand that the drainage detention is necessary, but would like to see it as flat as possible. She would also like to see the viewshed to the granary left open. Ms. Carpenter said that the plans are not finalized enough to make specific comments and she would like to see the plans brought back to the LPC. Mr. Whitaker said that the plans were very close to what they would submit, but they are planning on changing the access, would add notes to the plans, and will explore the details of the drainage detention further. The Commission would like to see details on how the detention pond relates to the granary, notes on what would happen to the northeast building, if it were to be built smaller, and the compatibility of the buildings, especially those surrounding the farm. OTHER BUSINESS: Discussion of the Demolition Delay Process Ms. McWilliams explained that Michael Lohman, owner of 713 Mathews Street, wanted to significantly alter the house and the garage which are being reviewed under the demolition/alteration review process. She commented that this situation certainly points out the shortcomings of the demolition/alteration delay review. In the East Side survey it was noted that both the house and garage have potential architectural importance, and would be eligible for designation as a local landmark. The property is also a contributing element of the Laurel School National Register Historic District. Mr. Lohman requested a waiver of the $200 application fee required under Section 14-72 (b) of the City Code. Staff recommended approving the request, due to substantial hardship for the applicant because of the long process. Mr. Lohman explained that he is working on a limited time frame and has taken the summer off to complete the work. He said that the property was formally a student rental and he would like to make it into a more livable house. He contracted with an architect, who he feels was very sensitive to the historic character of the house. He has already submitted plans to the Building and Zoning Department, and because of this process he will never be able to finish by the end of summer. He feels that he is making an improvement to the neighborhood, and explained that the garage may be historic, but it is deteriorated and he would like to start the work on it. He said he was frustrated enough to just move to another house. Landmark Preservation Commission June 24, 1998 Meeting Minutes Page 8 Mr. Lohman said that the LPC should evaluate the process, which causes people to not be able to do the types of improvements they are interested in. Ms. Carpenter said that they realize changes do need to be made to the process and thanked Mr. Lohman for his input. Ms. Carpenter said that they should educate people and make them more aware of the process. She explained that the reason for the process was to protect the neighborhoods and historic properties. She would like to see more leeway for owner - occupied properties. Ms. Milewski recognized that old bathrooms and garages are often too small. Ms. Carpenter explained that one aspect of the State Tax Credit Program was to support people making sensitive modem updates to historic homes and to keep preserve neighborhoods. OTHER BUSINESS CONTINUED: Ms. McWilliams reported that Sally Thorns, the owner of the English Revival home at 1109 West Oak Street, was interested in proposing dormers for the house. She would like to meet with the Design Review Sub -Committee to see what they would think about the idea, before the structure was designated. Mr. Pouppirt, Mr. Hogestad and Ms. Milewski will meet with the owner. Mr. Frank discussed some of the issues, which need to be addressed regarding the Demolition Delay Ordinance. Generally it needs more flexibility. The meeting adjourned 7:40 p.m. Submitted by Nicole Sneider, Secretary