Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 02/24/1998• U_b_��D LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting February 24, 1998 Council Liaison: Scott Mason Staff Liaison: Joe Frank Commission Chairperson: Jennifer Carpenter (225-0960) SUMMARY OF MEETING: The LPC discussed Richmond Associates' application to be listed on the Pre -Qualified Consultant's List of the Design Assistance Program. Final funding allocation was decided for the 1997 Local Landmark Rehabilitation Grant Program. Work -in -progress to restore the windows at the Fort Collins Waterworks was discussed. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Ms. Carpenter called the meeting to order 5:35 p.m., at 281 North College Avenue. Commission members Per Hogestad, Bud Frick, Stephen Short, James Tanner, Angela Milewski and Rande Pouppirt were present. Carol Tunner and Timothy Wilder represented Staff. GUESTS: Doug Gennetten, owner, 251 Linden Street; Susan Gomez, owner, 1501 West Mountain Avenue; Bob Allen, owner, 632 Peterson, Carolyn Goodwin, owner, 314 East Mulberry; John Amolfo, owner, 214 — 218 Walnut Street; Angela Brayham, Director, One West Art Center; Jane Hail, Poudre Landmarks Foundation and Mark Thorbum, contractor, University Designers and Builders, the Old Fort Collins Waterworks. AGENDA REVIEW: Ms. Tunner added the presentation of a work -in -progress for the old Ft. Collins Waterworks. Notice was not given on this issue, so no vote could take place. Mr. Wilder handed out the Design Standards and Guidelines for Historic Properties for Ms. McWilliams. STAFF REPORTS: none. COMMISSION MEMBERS' REPORTS: Ms. Carpenter said that there is a contract on the Preston Farm. The plan proposes to use the facility as office space and a place for meetings. Nori Winter, preservation planner has also been brought onto the planning team. Mr. Hogestad asked what will happen to the that church and youth groups can use the space, parking space. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None. CURRENT DESIGN REVIEW: None. DISCUSSION ITEMS: other buildings. Ms. Carpenter said Dut the complex will require a lot of Design Assistance Program — Application of Don Richmond, Richmond Landmark Preservation Commission February 24, 1998 Page 2 Associates — Architects/Planners Ms. Tunner explained that Mr. Richmond specializes in residential properties. She provided the criteria for pre -qualification for consultants for review. The most important criteria include education and training and the ability to interpret the accepted Secretary of the Interior's Standards. She said that the applicant had viewed the training video several times. Mr. Richmond explained that he is just getting into historic preservation and has joined the Poudre Landmarks Board. Ms. Tunner explained to the Commission that they can review Mr. Richmond's work beyond the list of projects submitted in his letter of interest. The Commission had also questioned whether the City would pay for the design service, even if a proposed plan is rejected during LPC design review. Ms. Tunner said that the way the DAP is set up, the City pays for the submittal of design plans on mylar, which could be used later. It is meant to keep from putting a burden on the applicant. When the plans are implemented, then the LPC would review them. She said that if there were continued problems with work submitted by a design professional, then the LPC could remove that consultant from the Pre -Qualified list. She showed slides of the houses which were worked on by Mr. Richmond, and the Commission made comments. Mr. Richmond said that they did not have any evidence regarding the original design of the front porch on 723 Mathews, but the contractor is rebuilding it without his design assistance. Ms. Tunner noted her recommendation that the rear addition was sensitive to the front of the house. Mr. Richmond discussed his current office remodeling. In 1890, the structure was built as a single level dwelling. Ten years later a second story was added, but in a very poor design. There was not protection from rain over the front door and there was no way to get to the basement apartment from the outside, except a trap door in the rear. So, the current addition is being constructed to create a common entryway. He referred to page 29 of the guidelines. He wanted to maintain the architectural features of the front and the detail on the upper floor. Twin brackets exist that are sixteen inches on center. During the demolition, they noticed that there must have been an original front porch and he is just rebuilding one. Ms. Tunner asked how the house was originally constructed. Mr. Richmond said that it had a brick foundation and a frame construction with stucco. Ms. Carpenter said that the current addition would not meet the guidelines. Mr. Richmond said that he tried to duplicate the architectural elements of the house. He referred to guideline #29, and had interpreted them to mean that he could create a new entry, if the original architectural element was missing. The porch could be replaced if it maintained the historic character. Ms. Carpenter asked if he had researched photo -documentation. Mr. Richmond said that he had not. The Commission discussed other projects, which were listed in the application. Mr. Hogestad asked how 120 S. Sherwood fits into the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Richmond explained that he used a steep pitch roof, single recessed garage and a statement of a front porch. The second car garage is hidden in the rear and they did not remove any other structure in order to build it. Mr. Hogestad described the context of the house, with single -story bungalow homes. Mr. Richmond said that there are homes up to 21/2 stories nearby. They discussed whether a house of that mass was appropriate on that Landmark Preservation Commission February 24, 1998 Page 3 street. Mr. Hogestad then asked how the design of 1030 West Oak St., a pop-up, related to the training video. Mr. Richmond said that people want pop -ups. They want to live in Old Town in a house with more room. He tried to create a home that met their expectations. Mr. Hogestad asked about more subordinate additions, which are recessed or added to the back side. Mr. Richmond said that he did suggest other alternatives to his clients, but this lot is short. To get that much more square footage he needed to go up. Ms. Milewski asked if any of the projects presented were locally designated. Mr. Richmond said that he is working on his first designated structure, a duplex. The primary reason for him to submit the application was because of his work with the Poudre Landmark Board. He was also interested in this type of work in college and he worked to restore dilapidated buildings in Denver. Now his work is more pop -ups and additions. They did not utilize the Secretary of the Interior's Standards when working in Denver, because they were not developed yet. Mr. Tanner asked the applicant to explain and comment on renovation and the restoration and rehabilitation of a building. Mr. Richmond said that a restoration involves retaining original elements without modification or replacement. Mr. Short agreed that you need to make a clear distinction in terms of reconstruction versus renovation in the context of redevelopment in Old Town properties. These examples were not really historic preservation; it is the issue of small bungalows and the need for larger houses for today's families. This is an important issue in the community that will not go away, and should not be confused with historic preservation. He also encouraged Mr. Richmond to embrace research and to go find out what he is working with. Mr. Tanner said that he appreciates Mr. Richmond's motivation, but at this point he was not impressed with how conversant he was with the documents that set out preservation principles. The projects submitted would not meet the guidelines. He added that he would like to see Mr. Richmond come back and reapply when there is more evidence that he is more familiar with the Secretary of the Interior's or the Old Town Guidelines and with the work of the LPC. Mr. Short moved to accept Mr. Richmond's request to be placed on the pre -qualified list of consultants for the design Assistance Program. Mr. Pouppirt seconded the motion. Mr. Short commented that he would still like to see more in terms of designing with sensitivity to the guidelines, but the applicant will have the opportunity to come before the LPC during Design Review. Ms, Carpenter said that she will not be able to support the motion, because she agreed with Mr. Tanner. She said that Mr. Richmond's interest is good, but she feels an obligation to vote no because the list recommends consultants with expertise with the local guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. She suggested that he keep up with it and then come back. The vote was tied for the motion. (3-3) (Frick abstained) (Yeas: Milewski, Pouppirt, Short) (Nays: Carpenter, Hogestad, Tanner) The motion failed. Landmark Preservation Commission February 24, 1998 Page 4 1998 Landmark Rehabilitation Grant Program - Allocation of Funds Timothy Wilder CCU Planner Mr. Frick had a conflict of interest, so he left the meeting. Ms. Carpenter thanked Mr. Wilder for all of his hard work. Mr. Wilder reviewed the grantee selection process. He explained that they started with $20,000 and there was an addition $5,380 added to the program. The extra funds came from projects which were not completed in 1996. Mr. Amolfo rescinded his 1996 funds, because he has changed the scope of his project and applied for a 1997 grant. Mr. Wilder provided revised ranking allocation sheets, which reflect the additional funding. He explained an e-mail from Carl Patton, which said he would be willing to negotiate partial funding and said that Les Sunde could accept a minimum of 80% in order to complete the project. He presented various scenarios for funding. He suggested that the Commission members think about what projects they would like to fund and whether everyone should receive the same percentage of funding or are they comfortable with different percentages. Mr. Tanner said that allocating different percentages to different projects presents a problem and he argued for across the board funding the same percentage. Mr. Short likes the 80% scenario because it is consistent and it would fund down through what he would like to see funded. Ms. Milewski would like to see full funding for the top one, two or three projects. She added that allocation percentage should not change mid -stream because that becomes too arbitrary. Mr. Hogestad said that there seems to be a natural break after the two projects ranked number eight. Mr. Tanner thinks that the natural break occurs before then and the first seven projects should be funded at 100%. Ms. Carpenter said that they could not fund one eight without the other. Funding up through number seven would leave $505 in excess, which could be saved for next year. Public Input: Mr. Gennetten said that he attended the last meeting and sees both sides of the argument for full funding versus partial funding. He is pulling for both sides and is both a residential and commercial property owner. He suggested that for the two extremes, it really changes the character of the program. He explained that the application form does not reflect that spectrum. The application is clear on what the Commission values, but some scenarios don't reflect that. Matching funds seem to be strongly valued on the application form. Mr. Arnolfo said that his scope of work had changed, which is the main reason he applied for a grant this year. He hoped to receive the maximum award. The scope of his work has grown and he has rescinded the money from last year. Ms. Brayham thanked the Commission for their support over the last year. She agreed that the application process did portray that the Commission favors application with higher matching funds. In this case a private non-profit art gallery is ranked high and is not a commercial project. Mr. Allen said that he saw a disparity between commercial and residential properties and that residential projects should be funded fairly. The Commission discussed final allocation decisions for the grant program. Mr. Hogestad said that he preferred the allocation scenarios which were straight across the board. Mr. It Landmark Preservation Commission February 24, 1998 Page 5 Short preferred 80% funding across the board because it reached down to 216-222 Pine St. project. It was the kind of building and tenant that has a certain role in the community. The Commission discussed the application and whether the ranking system takes in consideration matching funds. The weight of that score has already been reduced for scoring. Mr. Tanner disagreed with Mr. Short in his attempt to fund down to a certain project. He explained that there was a clear demarcation in the ranking. Ms. Milewski added that the point system already allows people to cast their opinion on individual projects. Mr. Pouppirt agreed. Ms. Carpenter said that if they fully fund projects, there would be an equal number of residential and commercial projects. Mr. Short suggested that they revisit the rating system in the future. Ms. Carpenter explained that it is a young program and it will be tweaked again. Mr. Short said that there should be a process for when people take issue with certain application elements. Ms. Carpenter said that specific elements can be addressed during Design Review. Mr. Tanner moved to approve funding for the first seven projects at 100%. Mr. Hogestad seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. (6-0) The LPC discussed some issues involving ranking applications. The difficulty in assessing someone's needs or strength to do a project was mentioned. Mr. Short recommended that they separate commercial and residential applications before the ranking process. Mr. Tanner disagreed. Mr. Wilder assured the LPC that the Rehab Grant process would be visited in the next several months to iron out the problems. Fort Collins Waterworks — Window and Door Restoration Ms. Tunner explained that the City stabilized the building in 1990. At that time, the glass was broken out and the window openings were boarded up to prevent entry by vandals. The caretaker's house was abandoned and both buildings needed to be stabilized to prevent further deterioration. The caretaker's house has since been restored and is occupied. Ms. Tunner explained that due to an oversight, the work to restore the windows has already started. She suggested that Design review for this project could be done administratively. The Commission requested that the contractor, Mark Thorburn, proceed with a presentation of the preservation techniques to be used in the proposed windows restoration. Mr. Thorburn said that the Poudre Landmarks foundation had asked him to survey the extent of the damage. What he discovered was that the windows were either there or not, and the existing windows had varying degrees of damage. He showed samples of the work -in -progress. Preservation Brief #10 on historic window repair will be used. They recommend repair or replacement with salvaged parts. The technique, which they are using to repair the window sashes has not been well documented yet, but is accepted practice. It uses an epoxy that he also used on the upper windows of the Trimble Block. To salvage the sash, they take out the rotted area and fill it with epoxy. It has very similar characteristics to wood. Mr. Hogestad asked if it was dimensionally as stable as wood, Landmark Preservation Commission February 24, 1998 Page 6 which it is. A heat gun was used to strip away the paint. Missing or deteriorated sections are being taken from other windows that are too far gone and need to be replaced, or rebuilt keeping with the same species of wood and design. Mortise and tenon with dovetail joints are the traditional techniques being used in the replacement windows. This technique is good because they don't have to splice in sections of wood as recommended by the National Park Service in the past. Mr. Hogestad asked if the epoxy was strong enough for a leading edge. Mr. Thorburn said that it machines very well. He explained that 50% of the windows could be repaired and 50% would need reconstruction. A couple of doors also need restoration. Mr. Thorbum added that there are two parts to the process, Primatrate, which penetrates the grain and prepares the wood for adhesion and the filler, called Dryflex. They will then primer and paint to keep the moisture out. Mr. Gennetten commented that he was interested in this product for his building. Ms. Tunner said that she believed she could handle this administratively, because they are replacing deteriorated elements in like kind. The Commission was in agreement. OTHER BUSINESS: None. The meeting adjourned 8:00 p.m. Submitted by Nicole Sneider, Secretary