Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 01/13/1999LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting January 13, 1999 Council Liaison: Scott Mason (226 — 4824) Staff Liaison: Joe Frank (221-6376) Commission Chairperson: Per Hogestad (303-292-1875) SUMMARY OF MEETING: The following items on the consent agenda were passed: masonry repair and installation of storm windows for State Tax Credit on the W.E. Mahood House, at 832 W. Oak; interior and exterior rehabilitation for State Tax Credit on the W.N. Culbertson House, at 909 — 909 1/2 Whedbee; exterior rehabilitation work and interior floor refinishing for State Tax Credit on the R.G. Maxwell House, at 2340 West Mulberry. The LPC gave a complimentary review of proposed fagade work on 116 and 101 South College Avenue. The LPC also gave a conceptual review of fagade rehabilitation work proposed for 160 —164 North College Avenue, the Beals and Reed Block. The LPC approved a test patch to remove stucco from the brick on that project. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Mr. Hogestad called the meeting to order at 5:37 p.m., at 281 North College Avenue. Commission members Bud Frick, James Tanner, Angela Aguilera, and Janet Ore were present. Angela Milewski and Rande Pouppirt were absent. Carol Tunner represented Staff. GUESTS: Steve Davidson, owner, 832 West Oak, the W. E. Mahood House; Robert Kopitzke, owner, 909 — 909 1/2, the W. N. Culbertson House; Marilyn Warrick, owner, 2340 West Mulberry, the R. G. Maxwell House; Les Kaplan, owner, 116 and 101 South College Avenue, the Robert Trimble Block and Bob Mechels, Architect, Vaught Frye Architects; Suzanne McIntyre, Planner, and Dannette Dippert, Landscape Architect, representing Ted Zibell for conceptual review of 160 -164 North College Avenue, the Beals and Reed Block. AGENDA REVIEW: None. STAFF REPORTS: Mr. Hogestad announced that Bud Frick was back on the commission as a member. Ms. Tunner announced a conference sponsored by Colorado Preservation Inc., called the "Conference on Saving Places." She said that that they would be announcing the most endangered places in Colorado and would hold a lunch for the State legislators to attend. There will be an historic preservation workshop in Walden, Colorado, which is a videoconference sponsored by the Colorado State University Preservation Institute. It Landmark Preservation Commission January 13, 1999 Meeting Minutes Page 2 is scheduled for February 20 and would be good for those interested in learning more about how to research historic properties. On March 27 in Castlerock and on January 15 in Dolores, the Colorado State Historical Society will be holding historic preservation commission training sessions. In addition to information on training, Ms. Tunner announced that she received a letter from Dan Seese, who painted the four signs on the Trimble and Barkley blocks. He entered the Cache La Poudre Rifleworks sign in a national contest through a trade magazine and won second prize. She added that the sign was created with the help of the Design Assistance Program. The sign for the Rolling Thunder Ranch was also a runner up. Ms. Tunner discussed the LPC meetings scheduled for November of 1999. One will be the night before Veteran's Day and the other before Thanksgiving. She proposed that they move the meetings for those weeks to Tuesday the 9th and 23rd, to keep as much on schedule as possible. COMMISSION MEMBERS' REPORTS: None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The December 9, 1998 LPC meeting minutes were accepted as submitted. CONSENT AGENDA: 909 — 909 1/2 Whedbee, W. N. Culbertson House — Interior/Exterior Rehabilitation for State Tax Credit, Part 2 (Robert Kopitzke) 2340 West Mulberry, R. G. Maxwell House — Exterior Rehabilitation and Interior Floor Refinishing, State Tax Credit, Part 2 (Marilyn Warrick) Ms. Aguilera moved to approve the three items on the consent agenda. Mr. Frick seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. (5-0) Since the meeting was running early and applicants had not yet arrived, Mr. Hogestad asked Ms. Tunner to discuss other business. OTHER BUSINESS: Ms. Tunner spoke to the Commission about the Colorado Preservation Incorporated Legislative Breakfast that occurred earlier that morning. She said that Steve Tool and Peggy Reeves, legislators, thought that there would be no problem with getting the State Tax Credit Program passed again. She added that the way it is currently written, all of the projects would have to be completed by December Landmark Preservation Commiss3 • January 13, 1999 Meeting Minutes Page 3 31, 1999. In the near future there will be additional opportunities for press conferences and to address the program before the Senate Finance Committee. Ms. Tunner also gave the commission a heads up that Peterson Canvas was going to propose a new awning for the old Pasta J's restaurant. She said that she was not comfortable with processing this awning application administratively. She described the big, long awning over the patio and said that they wanted red, green, blue and gold stripes. They can't do stripes on the ends, so they plan to use a solid green. In addition they would like a blue scalloped valence with signage. Ms. Tunner commented that the design seemed very busy and that they were planning on doing only their space, and not the entire building. Mr. Hogestad said that they have approved different awning across the front of a building in the past. Ms. Tunner added that the awnings although different should still be compatible. Ms. Tunner then handed out the 1999 Local Landmark Rehabilitation Grant packets, which were prepared by Timothy Wilder. CURRENT DESIGN REVIEW: 116 and 101 South College Avenue, Robert Trimble Block — Complimentary Conceptual Review (Les Kaplan) Ms. Tunner explained that the buildings are not currently designated, but Mr. Kaplan, the owner, was considering designation. She added that the LPC has already conceptually reviewed plans for the storefront at 116 S. College Ave, but they have not yet seen plans for 101 S. College Avenue. Mr. Kaplan explained that the last time he visited with the Commission, he described the two different periods represented in 116 S. College's fagade. He described the late Victorian era, represented by taller, thirteen foot windows in the historic storefront, which he would like to extend across the building front. The second period of renovation for the building occurred in the late forties or fifties, when the Ben Franklin five and dime store was there. The storefront of the building was lowered in the course of the renovation and the windows were lowered to ten feet. The wood features of kickplates were removed and granite was installed. Then, they arcaded the building and introduced the recessed storefront to the T-Shirt Gallery. Mr. Kaplan explained that he decided to take the fagade back to the Victorian period. He wanted to get as much light into the building as possible and this way he could better unify the entire building. He described how they plan to deal with the arcaded section to create a more unified look. Mr. Kaplan discussed removing the beam, which lowered the window and moved the support structures lower. He said it would be difficult to re -introduce new footings into the basement because they would have to continue up into the first floor, interrupting that space. They would also be altering the arcaded entrance for the tenants. He said that from a design perspective they could not do it. The basement stairs would have to be completely redesigned. Also, the existing arcade would lose its relationship to the street. Mr. Kaplan said instead of apologizing for the arcade and the beam, they could use the space to provide some variation to the downtown streetscape. Landmark Preservation Commission -- January 13, 1999 Meeting Minutes Page 4 They proposed to leave the beam exposed and use it for a sign band. They also decided to use clear glass because you would not be able to see the beam that much and tinted glass would be inconsistent with the photo -documentation. They pointed to a metal pent roof in an historic photo, which came out where the belt cornice was. They thought it might once have been used to hang the canopy for the awnings. They proposed mild lighting behind it to illuminate the architectural features up above and below. They would also like to restore the roof cresting, which was an original architectural feature. The one support column in the left corner of the Threads storefront, they would wrap around with brick, making it look more like a structural element. The same would be repeated at the entrance of the office space, creating symmetry. The plans also include refurbishing the metal cornice and replacing the tile in the storefronts. They would also like to replace the railing, for which Ms. Tunner had suggested that they use brass. They also plan to replace the wood and provide lighting in the ceiling of the arcaded space. Mr. Kaplan concluded that given what they had to work with and that the tenant needs to use the space the way it exists, this is what they have come up with. Mr. Mechels, Architect, explained that the Gib's Bagels space will be a true restoration. He said that they consulted with a contractor, who said that given that the basement was excavated and the footings were floating it would be expensive to restore. In addition, Mr. Kaplan said that even if they removed the beam, they could not restore the storefront. Mr. Hogestad asked if he was interested in designating the building. Mr. Kaplan said that he was not sure. He would like it as an option. He said that if his plans would not create a building that was eligible for designation, then they might not want to discuss it further. Mr. Ore asked if restorations like this had been designated in the past. Mr. Hogestad said yes. Ms. Ore said that they should consider that the arcading had destroyed the integrity of the 1904 storefront. Mr. Tanner said that he likes what they have done given that they can't remove the beam. Mr. Hogestad asked what Mr. Tanner thought about the storefront for Gib's. Mr. Tanner said that it was livable. He said that the beam created a different sign band, but you could see why it was there and get a good sense of why it was there and what it was there for. Mr. Mechels said that there were two I -beams that were boxed in and five to six feet on center cobble were installed to transfer the weight load. They are looking into how to clean it up. They proposed four -inch pipe columns to transfer the load from the original lintel to the newer beam instead of the brick cobble. Mr. Hogestad addressed the arcade, but understood their predicament. He said that he does have a problem on the right with remodeling the historic fabric and removing the granite. Mr. Kaplan said that if they kept the granite, then the windows would have to remain at a lower level. It would not allow them to re -introduce the vertical proportions. Mr. Hogestad said that the granite portion tells the story of main street Fort Collins. Mr. Frick said that the plan was a good alternative to a full restoration, which would be almost impossible. He would rather see the full 1940s or 1900s restoration, but this was a compromise. Mr. Hogestad said that this plan was not furthering restoration efforts at all. Mr. Frick said that maybe the new owner would want to designate and complete a full restoration. Mr. Mechels said that they were restoring some historic Landmark Preservatipn Commissw•n • January 13, 1999 Meeting Minutes Page 5 features like the roof cresting, windows and the cornice. Mr. Hogestad said that designation should not be based on what may happen down the road. They are replacing historic fabric, with not really an original storefront. Mr. Frick asked if they could remove the beam from Gib's side. Mr. Tanner asked if the building would be more designatable now, then after the work was completed. Ms. Ore and Mr. Hogestad agreed that the granite section was from a time period that was historic. Ms. Aguilera said that how it is now is just hodgepodge. Ms. Ore thought that they should preserve what historic fabric was there now. Mr. Hogestad said that the north side, where Gib's will be, has a particular style that has importance. Ms. Aguilera said that it was just part of the 1940s storefront and it did not relate to the rest of the building. Ms. Ore said that they should take into account the history of the building. Mr. Frick asked if they would carry the wood features and kickplates from Threads across the arcaded entrance. They discussed how they would handle the brick kickplate wall in the arcade to match the wood. Mr. Mechels suggested that they could paint the brick, because it came all the way up from Nico's entry door or they could leave the brick unpainted above the floor plate. Mr. Frick said that they had put in a lot of effort to make it a 1904 look alike, but then this little piece will be just painted brick. Mr. Mechels said that they only had two weeks to close Nico's and get the work done. Mr. Tanner asked if they could apply a wood veneer, without tearing the brick out. Mr. Mechels said that it may not be able to bear the load and it would make the staircase thinner. They could possibly take the brick down to the floor level and then install the wood. Mr. Kaplan explained that they were looking at a railing, which had a combination of cast iron and brass. Ms. Ore said that it was more of a Classic building than Victorian, so simpler posts and recessed panels would work well. Mr. Hogestad said that anything that looked pleasing would be okay for the south side, since they were not really able to do an historic restoration. Ms. Ore would prefer to see the north side preserved, but what they presented looks great. They discussed the relationship between the top and bottom of the building as well as the north and south sides, in terms of the different periods of time. Ms. Ore said that renovations that are done in the historic period are not really preservation, but rather restoration. Mr. Kaplan asked what happened when there is really only one-third of an historic storefront left to preserve. Mr. Hogestad asked what James Stratis's opinion was, from the State Historical Society. Ms. Tunner said that Mr. Stratis told the owner that he could go either way and he should pick a period to restore and then go with it. Ms. Tunner read from the Secretary of the Interior's Standards #4, which read "changes which have taken place through the course of time are evidence of the history and development of the building. These changes may have acquired significance in their own right and each shall be respected and recognized." She said that this was subjective because people can look at it from different standpoints. Some may feel that an important period is represented. Mr. Hogestad added that Mr. Stratis probably did not imagine a beam through the storefront. Ms. Ore explained that when you rehabilitate, you use what's there and when,you restore you use new materials. This plan may jeopardize the building as a landmark, because the whole first floor would be new. Mr. Tanner used the Children's Mercantile as an example of a designated building with a new storefront. Ms. Aguilera said that if they had photo -documentation they could go back Landmark Preservation Commission January 13, 1999 Meeting Minutes Page 6 to what it originally looked like. She said that this plan looked more uniform and within the period. Ms. Tunner suggested that they get the opinion of the State. Ms. Ore said that she would prefer to see some visual representation of changes in downtown and that this building showed it. Mr. Hogestad said that it would be easier to lease this plan the way it exists now and the Nico's space doesn't look bad. He added that he would strongly prefer leaving the granite. Ms. Ore asked if it could be designated. Mr. Tanner said that they would need to discuss it, but either proposal was an improvement. The Commission discussed whether there was enough of the building storefront left to be designated as it was now. Ms. Ore explained that enough of the first floor might have been destroyed, affecting its integrity. Ms. Tunner added that the building might be historically significant. Mr. Kaplan concluded that there was only a remnant of the 1940s renovation and he wants to go with the time period that could be unified with the rest of the building. The Commission then discussed 101 South College Avenue. 101 S. College was historically made up from a combination of two buildings. An original building was on the corner and in 1890 it was a hardware and grocery store. Next door was a one story building. A bank then bought the corner building, removed the late Victorian cornice and installed a concrete cornice. The 1939 renovation included the one story building next door and was done in the Art Moderne style. He was not proposing much for the exterior of the building. He would like to renovate the north side along Mountain Avenue. They pointed out the existing arched granite entrance that mimics the front entrance. They are going to redo the office space upstairs and would like to design an entrance canopy in an Art Deco design, which would be appropriate for the 1939 renovation. Mr. Mechels said that they researched the canopy styles from the 1920s on. They proposed a canopy with a glass roof with mullions painted black to match the granite base. They would like to draw attention to the new use and are doing interior improvements as well, including a skylight. Ms. Ore agreed that the Art Moderne style was appropriate, but the canopy may compromise its historical integrity. Mr. Tanner questioned what the materials were and whether the materials were sympathetic and compatible. Mr. Mechels said it would be steel framing painted black. Mr. Hogestad asked how they would attach the canopy to the building. Mr. Frick asked how the water would drain off the canopy and was concerned that on the north side it would create ice on the sidewalk. Mr. Mechels said that they would have to cut into the building. Ms. Ore was concerned with how reversible it would be and asked how thick was the stone veneer on the building. Ms. Tunner noted that the LPC policy is that building anchors go into the mortar joints of a building. Mr. Frick suggested that they mount a faceplate on it with anchors in the mortar joints. Mr. Hogestad said that he would like to see them do some exploration. Mr. Mechels said that the mortar joints were not very thick. But, he said there used to be windows along the north side that were filled with limestone. He suggested that any holes could be filled with the same limestone. Ms. Ore asked if there were other ways to demarcate the entrance. Mr. Tanner asked if there was a way to shelter the entrance without destroying part of the building. Mr. Hogestad asked if they reduced Landmark Preservation Commiss, • January 13, 1999 Meeting Minutes Page 7 the size of the canopy, maybe they could lessen the damage. Ms. Tunner said that she was told that Mark Wolfe, Director of the State Historical Fund saw it and suggested other options to call attention to the entrance such as: lights, plantings, paving or a smaller awning over just the door. He said that the awning design could step out in reverse of the window design. The Commission discussed designation of the building with and without the proposed awning., Mr. Kaplan said that the awning was practical and would provide wind and rain protection on the north side. Ms. Tunner discussed incentives for designation and the State Tax Credit Program. She said that she thought the State probably would not fund changes that were proposed for the inside. Mr. Tanner said that what they proposed looks so sympathetic to the design of the building and so permanent that it almost would look like it was originally there. This is not preservation practice. Mr. Frick thought that it looked great, but it may not be appropriate. Mr. Kaplan discussed what he wanted to do on the inside and discussed the benefits to local landmark designation, including the design assistance program. Ms. Ore added that there were benefits to designation when he resold the building. Mr. Kaplan said that it could be a double edge sword in that case. He added that it was very helpful to hear the Commission members' opinions. �VCifPJl IltRQIl>I.I�-ViZIIII l--ia I. r.c(vJ.III CI r.TQ` 1 Ms. McIntyre, an historic preservation planner representing the Zibells, explained that Mr. Zibell could not make it to the meeting. Mr. Zibell sent along a brick that he believes is the same size and color as the brick in the Perennial Gardener. For a State Historical Fund mini -grant that they received for the facade, they are required to do a test patch to remove the stucco. The LPC also requested this test patch. Ms. Tunner suggested that the Commission meet out at the site before the next meeting to examine the brick and test patch. Ms. Tunner explained that this review was still conceptual. She said that new plans show they added double doors on the back wall and three anodized aluminum windows, which aluminum she thought was not appropriate, but the door was okay. Ms. McIntyre asked what further specifications the Commission required and if the LPC would approve a test patch. She presented photos of the Perennial Gardener brick face to give the Commission an idea of what they had encountered before. The owners were concerned that a similar condition would prevail on the other buildings. Mr. Zibell needs to know very soon if he should obtain the used brick. Mr. Frick said that they would need to see if it matched the existing brick under the stucco first. Mr. Frick moved for the applicant to do a test patch exploration. Ms. Ore seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. (5-0) The Commission discussed whether they could add the proviso that assuming the brick that was uncovered is damaged and that the brick is identical to that of the Perennial Gardener they could go ahead and rebuild the facade. It was decided that they needed to see the test patch first. Landmark Preservation Commission _ January 13, 1999 Meeting Minutes Page 8 The Commission agreed that they need final construction drawings for final approval and they will determine at the next meeting if the brick matches the old brick. Mr. Hogestad said that they need details of the wall sections, including any details relevant to the wall section with heights and steps called out. Ms. McIntyre said that the owners proposed an historic wood and glass storefront and that they have some photo - documentation that they received from Reba Massey. They blew up of the photos to get a better idea of the transom windows, but it was pretty hard to see in the blown up photos. She added that a structural engineer said that evidence shows the height of existing windows were pretty close to the original windows. This was also based on the finding that the roof rafters and the tin ceiling are original, limiting the clerestory window to their current height. Mr. Frick asked about the transom bar detail, which was on the 160 North College plan and was not visible on the photo -documentation. Ms. Mclntrye was not sure what that was. Ms. Tunner noted that the standard height doors have transoms above. Ms. McIntyre addressed the back wall, which faces the courtyard of the Perennial Gardener. They proposed a door through the side of the building and three small windows on the concrete addition in the back. The windows would be anodized aluminum with some sort of finish. Mr. Frick said that the aluminum would not look like a painted wood window in profile and that a painted hollow metal window or real wood was usually used. Mr. Hogestad concluded that the plans were all conceptual and that they had no drawings or plans for construction. He added that aluminum windows were not preferred. Ms. Ore was concerned about them punching holes in an historic wall for a door. Mr. Hogestad stated that it was not the front fagade and that they needed to conduct their business. Mr. Tanner wanted to discuss the shape of the windows and suggested that they use proportions of older windows around town. He also asked if they would be working windows and suggested that they at least appear to be double hung, even if they were not working. Ms. Ore said that they should also look at the configuration of the windows as well. Mr. Frick said that they need to know the use of the room, too, it could be a bathroom, which traditionally has small windows. Mr. Tanner asked if there was any urgency for Mr. Zibell to purchase the used brick. Mr. Hogestad said that he would rather see the old brick used than new, because they could create a very thin mortar joint. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None. The meeting adjourned 8:00 p.m. Submitted by Nicole Sneider, Secretary