Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 03/24/1999• LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting February 24, 1999 Council Liaison: Scott Mason (226 — 4824) Staff Liaison: Joe Frank (221-6376) Commission Chairperson: Per Hogestad (303-292-1875) SUMMARY OF MEETING: The LPC heard a conceptual review of the removal of a 1976 metal bin structure and construction of a new bin structure at 546 Willow, the Ranch -Way Feed Mills, and plans for an addition to the St. Joseph's School, at 127 North Howes. The LPC gave final approval to the fagade rehabilitation of the Reed and Beals Block and Star Grocery at 160 — 164 North College Avenue. The LPC approved the proposed treatment of the fagade pilasters at 150 North College. The LPC recommended recipients for the Outstanding Historic Renovation Award and the Friend of Preservation Award and grants for the 1999 Local Landmark Rehabilitation grant program. The LPC also supported staff's intent to write the Zoning Board of Appeals on behalf of the owners of 152 West Mountain Avenue, requesting a sign code variance for the old Scrivner's Grocery sign on the building. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Mr. Hogestad called the meeting to order at 5:38 p.m., at 281 North College Avenue. Commission members James Tanner, Angie Aguilera and Janet Ore were present. Rande Pouppirt arrived late. Bud Frick and Angela Milewski were absent. Carol Tunner, Joe Frank, Timothy Wilder and Karen McWilliams represented staff. GUESTS: Kim and Bonnie Szidon, owners and managers of Ranch -Way Feeds, at 546 Willow; Rick Hattman, Hattman Assoc., Architecture and Planning, representing 127 North Howes, St. Joseph's School; Ellen and Ted Zibell, owners 160-164 North College Avenue; Chip Steiner, citizen; Richard Pardias, represented the owner of Surfside 7, at 150 North College; Chris Penner and Rick Harter, 152 W. Mountain. AGENDA REVIEW: Mr. Hogestad wanted to bring up a couple of issues, which may affect the LPC, for discussion under other business. STAFF REPORTS: Ms. Tunner passed around the City Budget preparation material. The budget will be discussed further at the second LPC meeting in March. COMMISSION MEMBERS' REPORTS: None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Tanner changed the January 27, 1999 LPC minutes on page three, the last paragraph to read "...and you would hardly notice that the addition was there." Landmark Preservation Commisu,on February 24, 1999 Meeting Minutes Page 2 Ms. Ore moved to approve the January 27, 1999 meeting minutes. Mr. Tanner seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. (4-0) CURRENT DESIGN REVIEW: Ms. Tunner explained that the owners would like to demolish a 1976 bin structure and build another 104 foot high structure, with the future possibility of a phase two bin as well. The 1976 bin sits in front of the historic brick building. She explained that at a pre -conceptual review a year ago with staff, there were concerns with the original proposal and wanted to see the new structure go up to the northwest of the historic building. Staff also suggested that they not clean up the historic apparatus, but rather only demolish the 1976 structure. Some of the conveyor belts will be moved to the new building. Staff also suggested that the new structure have an open and transparent like design. They were also concerned with what would happen to the rest of the buildings when operations are moved to the new bin. Mr. Szidon explained that the first phase would be the automation of the packaging line. He brought pictures in to see what it would look like. The other phase would be years down the road. When the existing bin comes down, it would expose part of the historic brick building that was built in 1864. Ms. Ore asked which other buildings were historic. The silos were built in 1920 and the crib house was built in the 1860s. It is a very significant stacked plank structure. Ms. Tunner asked when the white gabled roof appeared on the brick building. Mr. Szidon explained a fire in 1976 had damaged the head -house and modernization brought on all of the apparatus above the roofline. He showed the original picture of the mill that was in the brochure. Mr. Hogestad asked if the new bin structure was free-standing and Mr. Szidon said yes. He added that the warehouse that the new bin structure will rise out of was built in the 1960s out of cinder block, with steel rafters and a metal roof. He explained that phase one additions would go behind the conveyor and phase two would be replacing the conveyor. Ms. Tunner said that the original windows on the brick building may be exposed when the bin comes down. Mr. Szidon showed how the apparatus would work and how the conveyors would be redesigned. Ms. Szidon said it would be safer than driving the feed around with forklifts. Mr. Szidon also explained the reason for the explosion panels. He said that they were asking for approval of phase one now. Mr. Hogestad asked if the new structure would be steel and what the louvers were for. Mr. Szidon called them bin stiffeners to hold the bin together. Mr. Hogestad asked if they could sheet over them. Mr. Szidon said yes, but it would look like a metal -sheeted bin. Mr. Hogestad asked about the usage of the historic brick building. Mr. Szidon explained that the usage would be the same. Ms. Ore asked if the new bin would impact the historic structures visually. Mr. Szidon said that the new additions would take a lot of stress off the historic buildings. Ms. Szidon invited the Commission to come and look at the almost ancient equipment and building material and methods, he said that they would remain that way. Landmark Preservation C041mission • February 24, 1999 Meeting Minutes Page 3 Rande Pouppirt arrived 6:00 p.m. Ms. Ore asked if the silos were still used. The Szidons explained that every inch of the facility was used. Mr. Hogestad asked if there were other locations for the proposed tower. Mr. Szidon said that it needed to be close by and centrally located for the process to occur efficiently and safely. Ms. Ore asked if the function of the building dictated what it had to look like. Mr. Szidon said that the older silos were made from slip form concrete. Ms. Ore asked if the new structure could be made round or smooth and commented that it would be a very dominating structure. Mr. Szidon said that he would have to consult with the engineer. Ms. Ore discussed that it was a newer structure and in a different shape, and its construction would show the evolution of the site. Mr. Szidon said that slip form construction needed a lot of room to set up, but it would be longer -lived because it was not as susceptible to salt corrosion as the metal. Mr. Tanner said that the newer building should appear clearly contemporary and distinct from the older ones. If the newer building was rounder it would de -emphasis the historic structures on the site. Ms. Ore agreed, but thought that the newer structure should be de-emphasized. Mr. Tanner said that it would be hard to de-emphasize a tall tower, but they should keep it distinct from the historic structures. Mr. Hogestad said that he had no problem with this piece being functional and contemporary. Ms. Szidon explained that it was a modem adaptation to stay competitive. Mr. Hogestad said that the site was a working history. He said that they would need more documentation including dimensions, materials and color for final review. Ms. Ore suggested that they visit the site too, because it may be confusing to look at it on the slides. Ms. Szidon described the colors for the buildings and that she would like something other than white. Ms. Ore said that white was very popular in the 1920s. Mr. Hogestad asked if there was any public input, and there was none. Ms. Tunner explained that St. Joseph's Parish needed an addition for the church school. The original building was Spanish Colonial Revival with a one-story addition. The reason they need more room was because of crowding in the administrative building, the school does not connect to the parish office, and they need handicap access to the school and the parish office. Ms. Tunner suggested that they use the natural slope of the ground to create access for the handicapped. She added that the proposed entrance addition would be set back and not cover windows or historic architectural features. The 1965 ambulatory would be cut back for the addition. Mr. Hattman explained the history of the church and the school. The church was built in 1900 and the original school opened in 1925. He outlined the changes made to the buildings over time. Currently two hundred eighty students are enrolled in the school in grades K through 6. He said that phase one would handle the expansion of the school for certain necessities, including new curriculum requirements using computers and multi -media equipment and expanded library. The parish also needed additional space for meeting and activities. They also must keep outdoor playground space and conserve open space for sports on the site. People in the neighborhood would also Landmark Preservation Commis.,.on — February 24, 1999 Meeting Minutes Page 4 benefit from open space. Mr. Hattman said that the circulation pattern was a challenge and he wanted to establish the library and computer room in a central location. He added that he would leave the front of the historic school and its details on Howes Street untouched. Ms. Tunner said that she showed the design of the entrance to James Stratis of the C.H.S. and he liked it, but would take out the two square windows. Mr. Hattman explained that those squares were only a detail in the brick and not windows. He said that they were similar to the details on the main elevation, and created a sympathetic element. Mr. Hattman explained that he was able to eliminate the handicap access ramp and use a more shallow grade to approach the entrance, as Ms. Tunner had recommended. He described the office space, which had a reception area and an area for the secretaries. The bathrooms did not meet ADA requirements and they would take down part of the gymnasium building and then rebuild with an elevator and other ADA requirements. The Commission and Mr. Hattman discussed materials and how they would relate to the original structure. He showed sample pieces of the Robinson brick in Ivory Matte, the Split Face Block, Valley Block #254, used to imitate the sandstone lintel and window sill and the matching doors and roof material. Mr. Hattman said that the courtyard was created as a private space for the church and it would be gated because they were experiencing some problems with vandalism. He described the massing of the addition against he gymnasium. He said that on the original proposal he depicted a flat roof or a slope roof along the entire length. Then, he reduced it to a parapet roof, making it appear less obtrusive. He also reduced the size of the building to sixty feet in order to lessen its mass and scale and there would be no battered walls, except on the center portion. Mr. Hogestad asked why he chose those proportions for the windows. They commented on the east elevation and Mr. Hattman explained that they there were two double hung windows together. Mr. Hogestad noted that the existing windows had different proportions. Mr. Hattman explained that the windows were different because of different floor to ceiling heights in new construction. Mr. Hogestad recommended he pull them apart a bit to get a taller window that would relate back to the originals better. He added that the windows were very important to the overall proportions. Mr. Tanner commented that then they would loose the sense of clusters of windows, if you separated them. Ms. Ore asked if they would look multi -paned and Mr. Hattman said yes. She also asked if the addition would be the same height or a little bigger. Mr. Hattman said it would be 24 feet at the eaves and the original building was 26 at the eaves. Mr. Pouppirt asked about the block used for the windowsills and the water table band along the bottom. Mr. Hattman showed him an example of the material. Mr. Hogestad asked if there was any public opinion and there was none. He said that he liked the massing of the building and the way it related to the original. He said that the courtyard might be a little narrow. Ms. Ore said that it might be dark. Mr. Hogestad asked if they had tried putting the addition along the side of the gym. Mr. Hattman said Landmark Preservation Co mission • February 24, 1999 Meeting Minutes Page 5 that they tried that configuration, but they would like to keep the classrooms separate from the play area and there were underground physical constraints in that area. Mr. Tanner said that Mr. Hattman did a nice job overall and it was good that they did not touch the older building. Mr. Hogestad and Ms. Ore agreed that they should further study the configuration of the windows. 160 — 164 North College Avenue. Reed and Beals Block and Star Grocery — Ms. Tunner said that this project was in for final review and construction drawings were submitted. The applicants were looking for some direction from the LPC on how to proceed with the stucco removal and fagade reconstruction. They would like to infill the brick on 164 and need to rebuild the fagade on 160. Mr. Zibell said that he met with James Stratis who was supportive of the changes in their plans. Mr. Zibell said that most of the stucco was removed from 164 and flat brick with an I-beam installed over the face was exposed. He would like to infill using a flat brick face. He does not have good photo -documentation of the brickwork, but they think that a 1920s photo showed a flat face brick rather than a stepped brick face. Mr. Zibell said that 160 was a little more complicated. The fagade had the original wood structural beam with a retrofitted (- beam underneath it. The features of the brick had been chiseled off to make a flat face. They would need to shore up the fagade because it was becoming unstable. Their options were to re -stucco the fagade or rebuild because the brick was so loose. They could use photographs and what they found underneath to replicate what was originally there. Mr. Zibell said that he has old brick of the same size, color, surface, and shape and would reuse whatever brick they could. He added that a structural engineer suggested that they rebuild too. Ms. Tunner asked if they would include the pilasters, which they would. Mr. Pouppirt commented that the signband should not cover the dentils. Mr. Zibell said that they had redrawn the signband on the new plans. Mr. Zibell said that there was one other issue, adding a doorway to the rear courtyard in the alley and windows to catch some southern exposure. The back section is a cinder block addition with no architectural features. The windows would be anodized frames in bronze. Mr. Zibell said that they were confident that they were building to photo -documentation. Mr. Pouppirt asked about the reflector unit on the end of the light fixture. The lights are gooseneck and are similar to the ones on the Perennial Gardener. Ms. Tunner said that the gooseneck type light fixture was recommended in the Historic Old Town guidelines. Mr. Tanner asked about the color scheme for the buildings. Ms. Tunner has a copy of the color scheme with the submittal materials from the conceptual review. Ms. Zibell said that she would like to revisit the color scheme. Mr. Hogestad asked if there was any public input, and there was none. Ms. Ore moved to approve for final review the application at 160 and 164 North College Avenue, except for the color scheme that will be brought back at a later date. Mr. Tanner seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. (5-0) Landmark Preservation Commission February 24, 1999 Meeting Minutes Page 6 IOU IYOUL" %1011Ug6. AUr1blUC / -I[ OCIIIIIWIL UI r ayGUC rIIUQ1LCIS IJUIIII 1 FU111101 Ms. Tunner introduced Richard Pardias, who represented John Trujillo, owner of Surfside 7. She explained that they would like to place wood, with attached antique surfboards on the pilasters on either side of the building. The original pilasters were covered with z-brick and are in bad shape because of the glue that was left behind. She suggested that they attach the surfboards without attaching it to the original brick. They will use an overhang bracket and attach another bracket to the concrete sidewalk. Mr. Pardias said that they would first install a finished, stained wood board and then a manufactured antique surfboard modeled after those of the turn of the century. They prefer to hide the pilasters until they can restore the entire fagade. Mr. Tanner asked if the surfboards would overhang the pilasters. Mr. Pardias said the surfboards would be the same width of seventeen inches or less and there would be no overhang. Mr. Hogestad asked if they would attach the bracket to the underside of the soffit. Mr. Pardias added that they would use finished, rounded nuts and bolts. Mr. Hogestad said that it looked like there would be about one -quarter inch of room from the brackets. Ms. Ore asked if there were any other changes being made to the fagade. Mr. Pardias said only signage. Mr. Tanner thought that this design would be compatible with the existing wood fagade. He suggested that they paint the wood behind the surfboards, so they would stick out more. Mr. Hogestad added that if painted, it would weather better too. Ms. Aguilera said that the angle iron brackets could also be painted. Mr. Pouppirt said that he did not like the surfboards. He said that there was too much effort to restore beautiful historic features downtown and that this was only adding to a building that was already a mishmash. He felt that they were really taking it over the edge and it would appear more comical, when downtown is not comical. Ms. Ore said that as the building is, it is only contributing. Mr. Hogestad added that they are not taking away from the historic architecture of the building. Ms. Ore asked if this was an issue of aesthetics or historic preservation. She asked if they needed to consider how it affects the character of the buildings surrounding it. Ms. Tunner referred to the Secretary of the Interior's Standard #7, which addressed whether a building was compatible with the surround neighborhood and environment. Ms. Aguilera said that the proposed changes would be temporary and reversible. Mr. Pardias explained that they were in the process of putting together funding for a full rehabilitation and they are working with the landlord to get financing for fagade work. Currently, they think that the building is an eyesore on the outside and they are just looking for a quick fix. Ms. Aguilera asked if the surfboards on the outside would be conflicting with the fagade, once it was restored. Mr. Pouppirt said that he likes the surfboard sign, but not the ones on either side. Mr. Pardias said that they do not want the surfboards to stand out. They want to stay within the theme of the restaurant and stay classic. Mr. Tanner said to think about the buildings next door and asked if there were similar wood coverings that would be more sympathetic. Mr. Pardias thought it would be an enhancement for the neighbors to see anything improve the fagade. Mr. Tanner asked whether this was an aesthetic question or a preservation question, and said that Mr. Pouppirt made a good point. Ms. Tunner discussed restoring the pilasters, instead of first investing in covering them up. Mr. Hogestad asked if there was any public input, and there was none. Landmark Preservation Commission • February 24, 1999 Meeting Minutes Page 7 Mr. Tanner moved to approve the proposed treatment of the fagade pilasters for 150 North College Avenue with the caveat that the LPC prefers that attempts to remove the glue be made first. Ms. Aguilera seconded the motion. (4-1) (Yeas:Hogestad, Tanner, Ore, Aguilera) (Nays: Pouppirt) DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1999 Outstanding Historic Renovation Award and Friend of Preservation Award Decisions (Carol Tunner. Preservation Planner) Ms. Tunner reported that the following projects were discussed last meeting for possible recipients of the Friend of Preservation Award: 629 West Mountain Ave., for the sensitive addition; Don Woeber, and Parks and Recreation Department of the City of Fort Collins for saving the cannon in its present location in City Park; the Historic Fort Collins Development Corporation, GTE Land and Dave Lawser for preserving the Preston Farm complex; Mayor Ann Azari. The following projects were discussed for recipients of the Outstanding Historic Renovation Award: Vaught Frye Architects, Dohn Construction and Veldman Morgan for the renovation of 200 Walnut, the Forrester Block, and the owners (Bruce Biggi and Jennifer Kathol) of 1320 West Oak for the restoration of the masonry on their home. Mr. Hogestad asked the Commission if they could think of any other projects and told staff that they were in favor of these award recipients. Mr. Hogestad left the meeting because of a conflict -of -interest and announced that the issues he wanted to discuss under other business would be addressed at a later date. Mr. Wilder presented requests for 1997 grant extensions for the following projects: 1. Doug Gennetten said that he had unanticipated project delays for 251 Linden Street. 2. John Arnolfo, owner of the Silver Grill was also receiving a State Historical Society Grant and would like to coordinate these funds along with the local grant funds. Staff recommended that they grant the extension because of the listed circumstances. Mr. Pouppirt moved to grant the extensions. Ms. Aguilera seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. (5-0) Mr. Wilder handed out the ranking score totals. He reviewed the score and announced that the requested running total was $28,401. $30,433 was the available total, due to projects that were never completed throughout the years. He also explained that Mr. Gennetten's requested funds needed to be carried over to 1999, but were not counted towards the $28,401 total requested funds. Mr. Pouppirt asked Mr. Wilder to explained the 251 Linden Street project, which included window replacement with single pane, double hung windows to maintain the historic character, re -roofing, and structural repair to the roof. He added that the project had ranked high under preservation need. Landmark Preservation Commis., on February 24, 1999 Meeting Minutes Page 8 Mr. Wilder explained that the Commission could choose to fund all or only some of the projects. First, he asked if the LPC agreed with the ranking scores. Then, he asked how they would like to do the allocations. He added that the applicants had been invited to attend the meeting, but none had come. Mr. Frank asked if Mr. Wilder had a recommendation. Mr. Wilder said that he would advise the Commission to consider not funding all of the projects on the list. Ms. Ore said that she had concerns over the project involving the barn and that it was not in keeping with historic character of a barn. Ms. Aguilera agreed. She said from projects ranked one through five you see a large gap in the ranking score. Mr. Pouppirt moved to fund projects ranked one through five. Mr. Wilder reviewed the projects and projects that the Commission would not be funding. He also asked if there were additional projects to be funded on top of the six. Mr. Tanner asked why the ranking scores might have dropped so significantly after the first six. Mr. Wilder explained that sometimes it was the significance of the structure or matching funds. Mr. Tanner said it would be nice to have $10,000 for the future for more pressing projects in the future. Mr. Pouppirt said that there were not too many pressing projects this year and questioned whether it should be considered in the future. Mr. Frank explained that in years past it has not really been that way. Ms. Ore said that she felt that a roof was a homeowner's responsibility and some roofing projects were ranked pretty high. Ms. Ore moved that we accept 924 West Magnolia. She said that water was coming in on the wood floor and there were few projects that had direct endangerment to the structure like this one. Mr. Tanner said that they do have a rating system and would need more rationale for pulling just one project out for funding. Mr. Wilder explained that the project was ranked lower because the applicant had fewer matching funds than other projects. He added that this part of the ranking was made clear on the grant application. There was no second for Ms. Ore's motion. Mr. Hogestad asked if there was any public input and there was none. Mr. Pouppirt moved to include 251 Linden Street in the grant awards for 1999. Ms. Aguilera seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. (4-0) Mr. Pouppirt moved to fund projects ranked one through five and use the one- year allocation amount ($20,000). Ms. Aguilera seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. (4-0) OTHER BUSINESS: Chris Penner and Rick Harter of the Stakeout Saloon, 152 West Mountain Avenue, sought a letter of support for the Zoning Board of Appeals for a sign code variance. Ms. McWilliams explained that they have been doing exploratory Landmark Preservation CoRmission • February 24, 1999 Meeting Minutes Page 9 demolition of the building fagade and have uncovered an old sign, advertising Scrivner's grocery. The building is not designated. If the building were designated this old sign would not count towards the sign allowance. Mr. Harter explained that the Scrivner's sign itself was eighty-four square feet. Mr. Penner explained that they would like a letter of support from staff to keep the sign and to add signage for their business. Mr. Harter said that they would like sixty-four square feet for their business signage, that they would use a sign type that worked with the older sign, and that the new sign would look appropriate next to it. Ms. McWilliams reported to the Commission that Mr. Hogestad had previously reviewed the issue and was in support of it. Ms. Ore said that it should be considered an artifact of the building and should not count against the current business for their sign allowance. They were told to coat the old sign with anything to protect from the sun. Ms. Ore asked why not cover it up. Mr. Harter explained that there were already holes in the front of the building from when it was covered up. Mr. Tanner asked if they would fill the holes. Mr. Harter said that they would where they needed to. He added that they were doing research on the history of that building and the one next door. Mr. Tanner said that their own sign should be distinguishable from the older sign. Ms. Aguilera said that the new signage would appear fresher and brighter, and that they should use a different font that still coordinates with the older lettering. Mr. Penner said that he felt strongly about keeping the sign and that it fits in with what they are trying to do with the historic character downtown. The LPC supports staff in writing a letter to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The meeting adjourned 8:45 p.m. Submitted by Nicole Sneider, Secretary