Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 11/18/1998i • LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting November 18, 1998 Council Liaison: Scott Mason (226 — 4824) Staff Liaison: Joe Frank (221-6376) Commission Chairperson: Per Hogestad (303-292-1875) SUMMARY OF MEETING: The LPC recommended designation of 140 North McKinley as a local landmark. The exploratory demolition of the fagade at 150 North College was approved with the proviso that the current fagade be returned if too much of the historic fagade was gone. The LPC approved option B, to save the trees and move the Cal Johnson/Henry Jessup historic house and barn at 2600 South County Rd. 11. The LPC viewed presentations on the impact of road widening on the old gas station and garage, at the corner of Harmony and Timberline, and also a presentation on the north east truck route. They discussed 13 applications for the 1998 Landmark Rehabilitation Grant. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Mr. Hogestad called the meeting to order at 5:40 p.m., at 281 North College Avenue. Commission members Angie Aguilera, Angela Milewski, Janet Ore, Rande Pouppirt and James Tanner were present. Carol Tunner, Karen McWilliams and Joe Frank represented Staff. GUESTS: Jordan Radin, owner, 140 N. McKinley; Timothy Wilder, City Planner; John Daggett, Transportation Planner II; Ellie Pearson, owner, 924 West Magnolia; Scott Griffin, Wheeler Realty; Van Johnson, nephew of Cal Johnson; Bob Blanchard, Current Planning Director; Matt Baker, Street Oversizing Coordinator; Cam McNair, Ilene Saloman, Jason Stutzman and Marty Sullivan, City Engineering; Glenn Konen, Architects' Studio, Richard Paragis, representing the owner of the Surfside Cafe, at 150 North College Ave. AGENDA REVIEW: Ms. McWilliams moved the presentation, on Landmark Rehabilitation Grant applications, to following the discussion items. STAFF REPORTS: None. COMMISSION MEMBERS' REPORTS: Ms. Milewski reported on the State Historical Society Conference in Erie, which she attended with Ms. Aguilera and Ms. Tunner. She said that the training videos that they viewed will be available to be checked out for educational purposes. They participated in a mock hearing. They also discussed the issue of conflict -of -interest. Ms. Aguilera added that they explored what are Staff's and the board members' duties. Ms. Tunner said that James Stratis gave a presentation on the Secretary of the Interior's guidelines, along with new points and new ideas. Concerning the mock Landmark Preservation Commis -ion November 18, 1998 Meeting Minutes Page 2 hearing, Ms. Milewski said that she played the role of a Commission member and discussed what information was and was not relevant to a Commission's decisions. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Tanner amended the September 23, 1998 LPC meeting minutes on page 7, under 324 Magnolia. The first paragraph, should read that " twelve feet was added to the back of the house and the second paragraph, should say "next door'. Ms. Milewski moved to accept the September 23, 1998 LPC meeting minutes as amended. Mr. Pouppirt seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. (6-0) DESIGNATIONS: 74V rjonn muminley HVenue — aoiruufl r' dUff], owner Ms. McWilliams presented the Robert and Orpha Buxton House and Attached Garage for Local Landmark designation. The house is significant for its Post World War II architectural style. The home also represents the efforts to build affordable homes on a large scale, and to modify the architecture to include the automobile in an attached garage, which later became the standard. Ms. McWilliams described the strip of such housing between LaPorte and Mountain Avenue. She pointed out the interesting fixed pane window with the large sidelights. Mr. Hogestad asked if there were any built-ins in the interior. Mr. Radin explained that there were none that were original. Ms. Ore said that in 1945 buildings were usually rudimentary. Ms. McWilliams added that the structure was virtually unaltered, with only a wrought iron supports on the back that was very reversible. Mr. Pouppirt asked if wood shingles were originally on the roof. Mr. Radin explained that the sellers installed asphalt shingles as a condition of the sale. Mr. Hogestad said that asbestos or composite shingles were likely to be the original roofing material. Ms. McWilliams noted that the asphalt shingles were considered an alteration. Mr. Hogestad asked if there was any public input, and there was none. Ms. Ore moved that the LPC designate 140 North McKinley as a local landmark. Mr. Tanner seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. (6-0) CURRENT DESIGN REVIEW: Ms. Tunner explained that the applicants used the Design Assistance Program. This was a conceptual review and they would like to do exploratory demolition of the existing fagade. She said that they planned a patio area out in front that would include the standard Old Town railings like at Coopersmith's. The applicants were seeking approval for the concept of an historic storefront. They included historic photo - documentation, but the lower portion of the building was not clear. Today there is a shake shingle upper fagade, a flat cantilevered canopy, and clapboard siding on the lower portion. There is also only one operable door, while originally there were two Landmark Preservation Cotission • November 18, 1998 Meeting Minutes Page 3 doors. Mr. Konen, architect, thought that there was some sort of brick cornice and transom windows that were covered up. The original fagade may be very similar to the Perennial Gardener. The upper cornice may be made of wood and there may be a layer of plaster over the brick. There is green pebble glass with texture in the transoms. Their plans for the building are similar to that of Starry Night Cafe. Mr. Hogestad said that it would be fortunate if some of the transom still exists. Mr. Konen added that it looked like it had two doors originally. They would restore both, but use only one. He explained the damage to the brick pilasters which were covered with glued Z-brick, plastered and drilled into. Mr. Konen explained that they might pull off the current fagade and decide that it is too expensive to restore, in which case, they would need to put it back up. Another result might be to uncover the fagade to find that the brick is covered with plaster. They may end up with a plaster look to the building. He explained that they would need a couple of weeks to explore it. Mr. Hogestad said that the building two doors to the north was very similar. He discussed the cornice with Mr. Konen. Mr. Konen added that they would like to see if there is plaster first, then see if it is within the applicant's budget to remove it. Mr. Pouppirt asked about the signage and awning. The applicant would like to see flat signage with neon in the window. Mr. Paragis, who represented the owner, explained that the cafe would have a 50s/60s theme. Mr. Hogestad asked if there was any public input, and there was none. Mr. Tanner moved to approve the exploratory demolition of 150 North College, with the proviso that should this exploratory demolition indicate that they find it feasible to proceed to remove all the non -historic fagade, they may, if it's not feasible they should restore what they took off. Ms. Ore seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. (6-0) DISCUSSION ITEMS: 2600 South County Road 11, Cal Johnson/Henry Jessup Farm — Road Widening Mr. Baker presented the ultimate build -out cross-section, with six lanes of traffic. He explained that with attached sidewalks and no parkway, they could gain twenty feet. They also used a four -foot wide median, instead of seven feet wide, all to help minimize the impact of the road widening on the farmstead. Mr. Baker reported that the City Forester rated the trees on the property from good to fair and provided a report on the condition and life span of the twelve trees. The assessed value of the trees was $100,000 to $110,000. Mr. Baker presented option A for the road widening. They would construct the four -lane road now and later expand to six, but the median needs to be installed now at the ultimate configuration, and they could not save the trees. Option B had a median wide enough to save the trees. He added that the wide median was not best from a traffic standpoint. Ms. Ore commented that option B put the road right through the middle of the house. Mr. Baker said that they have tried other options in an effort to save the house, but it was not looking good. They could save the house, if they were willing to lose the trees. However, it would bring the road right up against Landmark Preservation Commi. .on _ November 18, 1998 Meeting Minutes Page 4 the front of the house. Mr. Hogestad asked if they had come up with options for a mitigation plan for the house. Mr. Baker said that they have not gotten that far yet. Ms. Ore questioned the planning process. She explained that despite years of previous planning, they now have no choice and will impact the farm. She questioned if, in that process, the farm was considered ahead of time. She suggested that they work towards trying to avoid impacting historic sites in the future. Mr. Baker said that the historic issues did not come up because they did not have the information and no one knew that the farmstead was eligible for designation. Mr. Frank added that such issues do not come up very often. Ms. Ore asked if such issues would be coming up in the future as more roads needed to be widened. Mr. Baker explained that staff is creating an inventory of historic structures. Scott Griffin, representative of Wheeler Realty, commented that they now bounce the inventory off the Structure Plan. Mr. Griffin explained that he needed a consensus for the alignment of Timberline. He added that the ultimate road widening was eminent and they need to make plans for the property. Mr. Hogestad requested that the Commission first address the road widening issue. Mr. Griffin said that they could either saves the trees, relocate the structures, or run the edge of the road at the front porch. He thought hat his proposal for the structures may help the Commission in making their decision. Mr. Hogestad said that, as a Commission, they would consider the need to move the house. Ms. Milewski added that they don't know any details of where the house would be moved. Mr. Pouppirt said that he would like to see the building moved because even if the road was located six feet past the porch, the house would still lose the character it once had. He added that he was thrilled that it would not be torn down and could be saved. He also liked the idea of saving the trees, and said it was part of what makes this town so beautiful. Ms. Ore explained that preservation should be based on the significance of the site, and even if the buildings were moved on site, it could destroy its integrity. She noted that according to their own criteria, the buildings should stay on site as they are. If they could save the trees that's good, but she said that they should be more concerned about the structures. Mr. Baker reported that the best case scenario, with no trees saved, was five feet from the back of the sidewalk to the front porch. Ms. Milewski asked about the other trees adjacent to the house. Mr. Baker said that the other trees would have to go from around the house, including the second tier, so it would really open up the front of the house. He added that they could probably preserve some of the conifers. The Commission discussed the commercial use proposed for that corner and how it would affect the rest of the area and how the farmstead may be included into the use. Mr. Tanner did not support the idea of an involuntary designation of the farmstead. He added that history also played a role in the forces that put that road there and rather than leave the farm in the middle of an intersection, he would like to see it set up in the same configuration with some interpretive information. Ms. Ore believed that there is a lot of support for historic preservation in the City. Mr. Tanner said that he would rather not lose it and to insist on keeping an historic farmhouse at a commercial corner could come across as obstinate. Ms. Aguilera commented that it would lose its integrity at Landmark Preservation Csission • November 18, 1998 Meeting Minutes Page 5 that corner. She said that if the developer wanted to work with the LPC to re-create a good site and provide information on the history of the farmstead, then they could save both the trees and farmstead. Mr. Tanner said he was supportive of a developer wanting to get involved with saving part of what could be destroyed. Mr. Hogestad explained that where the house was moved, and its relationship to the site would be critical. Ms. Milewski said it would be nice to include the house in the corner, but the road has a great impact and alters it integrity. Mr. Baker reviewed the options for the Commission. Option A was to shift the alignment of the roadway west of the right-of-way line. Option B was to put the trees in the median. Mr. Hogestad asked if there was any public opinion, and there was none. Ms. Milewski moved that the LPC make a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Board to recommend Option B, as presented by Matt Baker, for planting the trees in the median along Timberline Road and relocating the buildings, with the details planned later, and to save the smaller pine trees to the extent as possible. Mr. Pouppirt seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. (6-0) 2024 East Harmony Road, Harmony Gas Station and General Store — Road Widening Impact (Matt Baker) Ms. Milewski declared a conflict -of -interest, because she is working on the Poudre Valley Hospital site, and she left the room. Mr. Baker reported that the right-of-way agent has done some preliminary estimates based on the land value, which was $78,000 just for the property, and $137,750, with the development potential. He described three options for moving the gas station and general store. The first option was to move the building back on the Vos property. The second option was to purchase the Reilly property, demolish the existing structure and move the gas station and garage. The third option was to purchase the adjacent Jal property, demolish the structure and then move the gas station and garage. The Commission said that they would like to see the relationships of the buildings to each other, as well as to Harmony Road, preserved. Mr. Baker said that the owner of the gas station and garage would prefer to live in the Reilly house, and demolish the house on site. He added that the commercial use of the corner property was limited because of limited access off the roads. Mr. Tanner noted that a ditch existed on the Jal property and asked how the structures would appear, if moved to the other side of the ditch. Mr. Frank said that problems with land use arise as you move the structures further back. Ms. McWilliams noted that the structures should maintain their alignment with the Harmony corner in order to help maintain the historic integrity. She added that the Vos house, on the corner, is on very poor shape and Mr. Vos would like to move into the Reilly house. Mr. Hogestad expressed a preference to move the property to the west, because it maintains a better relationship to the corner. She explained that if the City would be putting forth the expense to purchase the adjacent land and move the structure to keep them preserved, they might want to designate the structures. Mr. Baker said that the owner was not interested in designation. Mr. Tanner discussed whether the owner would have to agree to designation. Landmark Preservation Commr:..,,on November 18, 1998 Meeting Minutes Page 6 Discussion of Moving the Cal Johnson/Henry Jessup Farmstead Structures — Scott Griffin, Representative, Wheeler Realty Mr. Griffin presented the conceptual plans for moving the farmhouse and barn. He said that the barn was missing the hayloft and they proposed to put it back in. The buildings would be used as a community center complex and would create the theme for the surrounding development. They were thinking of putting a subsidized coffeehouse inside the farmhouse to be used regularly. They plan to recreate the farmstead as much as they can. Ms. Tunner asked if they had thought about including a horse and pasture area as well. Mr. Griffin said that they might not have the acreage to make that work. Mr. Hogestad asked if they had studied maintaining the placement of the buildings on the corner lot and how the buildings could work into the development of the widened corner. Mr. Griffin said that it was planned as a dense commercial use. He added that they could not preserve the feel of the farmstead with a complete commercial re -use. Mr. Hogestad suggested that it could be re -used as a restaurant or office building, and could even be added on to. Mr. Griffin explained that it would be sub -optimal for that corner. Mr. Hogestad said he was not sure that the current proposal met the intentions of the Land Use Code in preserving that building. Ms. Ore said that they should be exploring all options. Mr. Frank referred to Section 3.4.7, pages 71 — 72, of the Land Use Code, which addressed preservation and adaptive re -use of an historic structure. Mr. Griffin said that Wheeler's priority was to save the farmstead, not the house on that corner. He added that if it remained they would have to install a parking lot through the entire barnyard, which would also affect the integrity of the farmstead. Ms. Aguilera explained that the applicant has not shown the possibility of adaptive re -use of the farmstead. Ms. Milewski added that the quality of the farmstead is devalued, when it is moved. She would like to see the applicants re -look at the adaptive re -use of the structures as part of that commercial corner. Mr. Hogestad would also like to see a study of that corner. Ms. Milewski added that the Commission needed to see more information before they can provide a consensus on if or where to move the farm buildings. North East Truck Route (John Daggett. Transportation Planner II) Mr. Daggett explained the history of the project. The objective of the project was to move the highway route out of the historic district. He explained that they have been working with the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan and would like to create a transportation route for the northeast portion of the City. Mr. Daggett reviewed the four options that are still viable. He explained that for the Vine route, at the 1-25 interchange, where the road crosses the railroad, they would have to either go over or under. The Modified Vine route would go north of the Alta Vista neighborhood. The Mulberry and Lemay route wrapped around the Alta Vista neighborhood. The Mulberry, Timberline \ Vine route had three homes taken out, as the road started at Mulberry and moved northwest to Vine. Landmark Preservation Covission • November 18, 1998 Meeting Minutes Page 7 Mr. Daggett described the impact of each of the alternate routes on historic structures. He said that the modified Vine route would affect the Cooper's property and the Plummer school. Ms. Ore asked if the route could be shifted to the north or the south. Mr. Daggett explained that the railroad switching station already existed to the south. Mr. Daggett reported that the residents in the affected neighborhoods, when asked for a preference between these four options, expressed a preference for the Mulberry, Timberline, and Vine route and explained that the Vine route would do the most damage. The Commission examined the Modified Vine route and how it might be realigned to miss the Plummer School. Mr. Daggett added that this route was considered the best of the four plans, according to the residents of the Andersonville, Buckingham and Alta Vista sub -divisions. Mr. Daggett described the changes that would be made to the local streets, if the Modified Vine route was implemented. The changes in the streets were planned to protect the neighborhoods. They also intended to keep the route free flowing and then have the neighborhood roads end in culdesacs. He added that setbacks and mitigation plans would also be implemented. Mr. Hogestad reported that members of the neighborhood suggested pushing it further north and then putting a park in between. Ms. McWilliams addressed the 1984 CDOT survey and reported that in the opinion of the Colorado Historical Society's Intergovernmental Agreement Coordinator, Kaaren Hardy, the survey was outdated and that the eligibility of the neighborhoods should be re-evaluated. Ms. Ore asked about the proposed Wal-Mart for that part of town. Mr. Daggett said that they anticipated an average of 18,000 trips per day to the seven proposed stores. Mr. Daggett then mentioned the enhancement grant application, which covers projects that deal with transportation. There was an extension for the application until December 3, 1998. He suggested that it would be a good opportunity to research the trolley. Ms. Tunner reported that they had received a grant from Anheiser-Busch. Mr. Daggett said that he would return with the alternate route when they were in the design process. PRESENTATION: Local Landmark Rehabilitation Grant Program — 1998 Applications (Timothy Wilder, City Planner) Mr. Wilder reported that they received thirteen applications, requesting a total of $34,575, with a match of $156,222. The total dollar amount was for $190,797. He presented a summary of the following projects, including slides of the structures and features that were proposed for rehabilitation: 1. Carolyn Goodwin, owner of the Bennett-Repogle House at 314 East Mulberry had received the grant in the past for other projects. Now she requested $1700 to complete masonry and exterior work, work on the stone foundation, window caulking and glazing and repair of the interior plaster walls. Mr. Wilder commented that the Commission would need to consider if the interior plaster wall repair was eligible for grant funds. Landmark Preservation Commi_..on November 18, 1998 Meeting Minutes Page 8 2. The request for 903 Stover Street was to replace the wood shingles 3. Six hundred dollars was requested to replace the gutters on 924 West Magnolia. Matching funds were also $600. 4. The new owners of 1501 West Mountain Avenue requested $2,500 to replace the rotten wood siding. Matching funds were also $2,500. 5. $860 was requested to seal off the manhole cover and fill the coal shoot in front of 240 East Mountain Avenue. Matching funds were also $866. 6. $2,500 was requested for masonry repair with the original brick, tinted mortar to match the old mortar, removal of the antenna and non -historic chimney and to replace the asphalt shingles with cedar shingles. The work was proposed for 1400 West Oak, which had $19,175 in matching funds. 7. $5,000 was requested for a storefront rehabilitation and replacing the awnings at 160 North College. $64,322 was the matching funds. 8. $5,000 was requested for 231 South Howes. The proposed work included gutter replacement, replacing the roof with wood shingles, soffit and fascia work and to replace two brackets on the house. Matching funds equaled $17,055. 9. $2500 was requested for porch and soffit work on 816 West Mountain Avenue. Matching funds equaled $5,175. 10. $1441 was requested for 311 Whedbee. The proposed work included four windows on the north side, to repair and refinish the siding and trim, to rebuild the roof, and for foundation work. The matching funds equaled $3,151. 11. $2,500 was requested for 1601 Sheely Drive. The proposed work included to reconstruct two decks, replace rotting louvers from water damage and to replace guardrails and decking as needed. Matching funds equaled $7,132. 12. $5,000 was requested for roof work on 200 East Plum. Matching funds equaled $11,600. 13. Temporary security measurements were requested for the Preston Farm site. Mr. Hogestad declared a conflict -of -interest and left the room. He has applied for the grant for his locally designated home. Mr. Wilder provided some additional information about the grant program and requested further discussion from the Commission on certain items. Firstly, he provided a letter from the owners of 1501 West Mountain Avenue who rescinded their grant from last year, which freed up an additional $2,500. He also provided a letter from Ellie Pearson, owner of 924 West Magnolia, who Landmark Preservation Assion • November 18, 1998 Meeting Minutes Page 9 explained why her application was submitted late. Ms. Milewski asked her if she had been misinformed regarding the application deadline. Ms. Pearson said no. She explained that she was out of town for a family life or death emergency and became confused about the deadline. Ms. Aguilera moved to accept the late grant application for 924 West Magnolia. Mr. Tanner seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. (5-0) Mr. Wilder then handed out a copy of the ordinance 96 — 24, which established the Local Landmark Rehabilitation Grant Program as an ongoing project of the City. It was needed for the discussion of 240 East Mountain Avenue. He showed a diagram of the underground coal shoot. Ms. Ore asked why the applicant wanted to fill it in. Mr. Wilder explained that they feel it was hazardous. He referred to page 2 and asked if it was truly a rehabilitation project. Mr. Wilder added that the manhole cover was the only exterior historic piece of the project. He showed slides of the water damaged wall and explained that the area was prone to flooding during heavy rainfall. He explained that only matching funds could be used for structural work. They discussed the area and whether it was structural part of the building. Mr. Frank referred to Article 5, page 39 of the Land Use Code to help make their decision. This section defined a structure as, "shall mean a combination of materials to form a construction for use, occupancy or ornamentation whether installed on, above or below the surface of land or water." The LPC decided to accept the application, but modify it to only include the manhole cover as an exterior element. Next, they discussed whether the security measures proposed for the Preston Farm were eligible. Ms. McWilliams explained that they were having a problem with vandalism of the old buildings. Ms. Ore said that security measures like plywood would considered part of stabilization and could be included in the matching funds. Ms. Milewski questioned if any of the items were part of rehabilitation. The Commission explored several definitions of rehabilitation, including from the Standards and Guidelines for Historic Properties. Ms. Aguilera said that this definition was geared more towards using the property. Mr. Wilder read another version from the Old House Journal, which addressed making the structure sound. They discussed what items could be used for matching funds. The Standards and Guidelines for Historic Properties included security measures against vandalism in stabilization. Mr. Tanner was willing to accept any measure that prevented further deterioration. The Commission felt that the work did not represent rehabilitation and could not receive grant funding. The Commission agreed that the interior plaster work proposed for 314 East Mulberry would be considered interior work and therefore was not eligible for a grant. The Commission then discussed the wood shingle roof proposed for 200 East Plum. Ms. Ore felt that the original roof was probably made of slate. Ms. Milewski stated that the point of the grant was to rehabilitate to historic material. She added that replacing Landmark Preservation CommL-,on November 18, 1998 Meeting Minutes Page 10 the roof with composition asphalt would be considered a maintenance issue. The Commission agreed. OTHER BUSINESS: Ms. Tunner announced that the 1998 LPC Christmas Party would be hosted by Per and Veda Hogestad. The Commission decided the December 16, 1998 would be a good date. The meeting adjourned 9:20 p.m. Submitted by Nicole Sneider, Secretary