Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 08/08/1995LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting August 8,1995 Council Liaison: Gina Janett Staff Liaison: Joe Frank SUMMARY OF MEETING: The LPC approved the June 27, 1995 meeting minutes as amended, discussed the proposed historic designation of the Aggie "A", and gave a conceptual review of the proposed C & S Depot rehabilitation. The Commission approved the proposed rehabilitation of 201 South College, the Old Post Office, except for the cleaning and sealing of the building and brown was approved as a preferred alternate for painting the trim pieces. The Commission approved the installation of a standard patio railing for the Bourbon Street Restaurant and Linden's Bar, 208-214 Linden Street. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Commission Chairman Jennifer Carpenter called the meeting to order at 5:35 pm, 281 North College Avenue. Secretary Diane Slater called the roll. Commission members Jennifer Carpenter, Bud Frick, Per Hogestad, Terrence Hoaglund and Jean Kullman, were present. James Tanner, Ruth Weatherford were absent. Joe Frank and Carol Tunner represented staff. GUESTS: Kelly Ohlson, environmentalist; Dave Lingle, architect, and Becky Spears, consultants for C & S Depot renovation; Jack Gianola, Special Projects Manager for the city; Bob Smith, Stormwater Utility Director, Stormwater, Dick Beardmore, CSU Center for Stabilization; Dick Hill, AIA, consultant for One West; Angela Brayham, Executive Director of One West; Tom Kalert, architect; Stephan Mejia, Tom Short, Maggie Kunze and Pat Stryker for Linden's and Bourbon Street Restaurant. AGENDA REVIEW: None. STAFF REPORT: Ms. Tunner reported on an article on the property rights debate which appeared in a recent issue of Forum News, published by the National Trust, a subject on which she would like to have a staff training session. Ms. Carpenter felt this was a good idea. Ms. Tunner received a letter from the State Historic Society regarding possible designation of the Aggie "A" as a State Register landmark which invites the LPC to attend the nomination hearing. Todd Eckert, an historic preservation student from CSU, is working with Mike Powers, CLRS Director, on the nomination. Ms. Tunner distributed material on historic uses of alphabet letters in the landscape, which were common from 1905-1915. As a Certified Local Government, the LPC could comment, but the letter to Mayor Azari has not asked for comment. Mr. Kelly Ohlson addressed the Commission under citizen comment. He has worked on 15 historic Landmark Preservation Commission Regular Meeting Minutes August 8, 1995 Page 2 buildings in Fort Collins and as mayor was instrumental in saving the Waterworks. As a council member he supported Old Town. He is opposed to the City taking action on designation of the "A". He feels it is incomprehensible to subsidize graffiti on the foothills at a time when the natural foothills are being promoted. He said that the vegetation has been destroyed by the spray painting on the hill. He felt there should be more sensitivity to the natural environment and that what started as a prank is now being proposed for open funding. He said that once it is designated, it won't go away. As of 2022, the deeding for land will no longer require the A and at that point, the City may want to do away with it but be unable to do so due to the proposed designation. Mr. Beardmore said he would like to respond. He disagrees because in the context of the community, keeping the "A" honors the roots of the University, which was instrumental in keeping the town in existence in its early years. He said there are other scars on the foothills more obvious than the "A" and he thought the designation would be reversible if the community decided it wanted the "A" to go. It honors the University which is still the largest employer. He feels historic preservation outweighs the natural concerns. Ms. Tunner said she had some background. The land was owned by Robert Maxwell, who granted a 99 year easement to the University in 1924. He willed the foothills land to his heirs. The land was sold to the City in 1976. The City was not comfortable with the easement and amended the easement to state that the State Board of Agriculture does not claim any ownership of the land. The City has agreed to the proposed designation. Mr. Frick felt the City should go ahead and designate. Ms. Carpenter asked if the Commission needed to vote. Ms. Tunner said there was no need to vote. Ms. Carpenter said there was therefore no need for input. Mr. Ohlson said the City told him it would be discussed. He suggested a place at the beginning of the agenda for Citizen Comment for private citizens who might like to comment on upcoming items. Mr. Hoaglund and Ms. Carpenter said they did not see the detriment to the environment of keeping the "A". Ms. Tunner reported on a proposal by Foxfire Property Management requesting LPC review of already painted planter benches in the Old Town Plaza. The Old Town painted benches are owned by the DDA and the DDA has not been told that the benches were painted to cover up graffiti and they must, therefore, still be notified before action is taken. Ms. Tunner showed a picture of the second largest Burr Oak recorded in the State, which is on Lincoln Street across from Ranchway Feeds. It is 80 tall by 40 around. Tim Buchanan, City Forester and Susan Gordon, Natural Resources, feel this is an historic Oak and would like to help the tree survive. They can raise $1,000 but it will cost more to save the tree and plaque it and are therefore are looking into funding. They would like to plant more oaks in a circle around it. The tree is part of the Udall Nature Center, which is owned by the City. The East Side West Side Design Guidelines will go for a first reading next Tuesday and members of the LPC should attend. Ms. Tunner will follow up to see if Ms. Weatherford or Mr. Tanner can go. Landmark Preservation Commission ► Regular Meeting Minutes August 8, 1995 Page 3 Mr. Frick, Mr. Hogestad, Mr. Hoaglund, Ms. Carpenter, and Ms. Kullman said they can't be there. There are several submitted to the State Historic Fund. Ms. Tunner said the State Historic Society asks the LPC to review requests and note support. The LPC supported the Waterworks proposal, C & S Depot Rehabilitation, Central Business District Neighborhood survey and district designations. COMMISSION MEMBERS' REPORTS: None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regarding the June 27, 1995 minutes, Mr. Frick said on the fifth page, second paragraph, fourth sentence, "but Mr. Frick said being over blocking is not necessary if it is staggered" should be crossed out. Ms. Turner gave corrections for Ms. Massey and said on page 3, last sentence to cross out the "be more" so the sentence reads "Ms. Massey said she thought using a door would provide air flow" and on page 8, second paragraph, 4th sentence --add based on integrity, take the parentheses away from landmark, contributing, and noncontributing, and cross out landmark and contributing and noncontributing which are underlined so the sentence reads "Ms. Massey said there are three levels needed to define criteria, landmark, contributing, and non- contributing". Page 9, remove "rather than districts" and "historic and non-contributing" so the sentence reads "The criteria would be based on architecture and once again use the three levels mentioned by Ms. Massey for contributing." Mr. Frick moved to accept the changes to the June 27, 1995 minutes and Mr. Hogestad seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. CURRENT DESIGN REVIEW: C & S Depot Mr. Lingle presented the revised plan. The plan is going through the PUD process and is scheduled to appear before Planning and Zoning on August 21. It will primarily be an office building for the Stormwater Utility. They propose to put restrictions on the future development of lots 1, 2, and 3 to enhance and protect the restoration of the depot and to ensure compatibility. The portion to the west of the depot is to be prairie landscaping typical of that found next to a railroad in the high plains, integrated with more urban types of landscaping in other areas to maintain view corridors. An addition is proposed to the east. They are restoring 6000 square feet of space and adding 3900 sq. ft. office space. They will keep as much of the original interior architectural features as possible. The front will be for public reception and conference space. The addition will respect the character and scale of the original building. It will be clear it is not part of the original construction and will be recessed about 6'. They will reflect the original brick detailing but not copy the freight doors for the window openings in those areas. The East and South face will have tubular sun screening to Landmark Preservation Commission Regular Meeting Minutes August 8, 1995 Page 4 protect the east and south glass. They will cut in windows on the west side of the freight portion and will use double hung windows. They will blend the new mortar color to enhance the buttered joints of the original and introduce color to the sunscreens over the east addition windows. There will be belt coursing on the addition to reflect the original building. Mr. Beardmore showed a copy of the photo from which they are working for the roof design. The City sees this project as a pioneer for energy conservation and some historical items such as transoms and daylighting are energy efficient. Also, it is better to give the users some control over air quality with movable windows. Window options were discussed and any proposal must meet with approval under state historic guidelines. One option would be the replication of existing windows on the south freight office. There was discussion of the signage. Ms. Spear said the signage could go on the building itself or could be a monument sign oriented to the road. Ms. Turner suggested using the Stormwater logo on the door as the railroad did historically.. The LPC wold like to preserve the original sign on the building, possibly incorporating the "Fort Collins" piece into the new sign. The dock and infill for the freight door openings were discussed. The existing doors are not weather- stripped and would be difficult to incorporate where they are now. They would like to maintain some of the doors for interpretation on the interior. They are looking at a wood system on the interior infill. They will call out where the original doors were and allude to the divided light glass. Mr. Beardmore discussed different possible ways to install windows so they will read well. They will keep the gullwing roofs without the crickets and repair the gutters/downspouts and improve the flashing.. They will repair some of the corbelling on the brick. Mr. Frick asked about the freight manager's office and using interior daylighting from the roof lantern. Mr. Lingle said Stormwater wanted lots of windows. Mr. Frick suggested putting a moveable door on the front of the office for the manager. Mr. Beardmore said it is an adaptive re- use, so a standard door is necessary. Mr. Beardmore said they may close off the top of the offices to the ceiling. Ms. Spear said the employees have expressed a preference for increased natural lighting. Handicap access will be from the east to the front door. They may use a concrete to match the detail rather than sandstone which is difficult to get. Ms. Spears said if the grade is raised to within 30 of the dock, the railing could be eliminated but handicap use still requires some guardrail. The railing may only need to be on the north side of the dock to be considered handicap accessible. The freight car is to be in this area. Mr. Beardmore said Risk Management must review the proposal for railings on only a part of the dock. For handicap accessibility, only part needs to be railed if the grade is raised to 30". They are proposing to raise the Landmark Preservation Commission Regular Meeting Minutes August 8, 1995 Page 5 grade so the hand railing is not necessary everywhere on the dock. Ms. Carpenter said she would have liked to have known about this alternative before the LPC made the decision to remove the dock. Ms. Carpenter would like to check the minutes on this decision. The entrance doorway will be maintained and the door replicated. Ms. Carpenter would like the transom glass above the front entry to be maintained. The sidelights will be maintained. The presence of the bar between side light may allow the non -tempered glass to be used. Mr. Frick suggested that the interior ticket window may have historic glass that can be re -used by the door. Mr. Hoaglund said he thought there was a lot of fun detail that reinforces the railroad theme. He is concerned about the large courtyard to the west. Mr. Beardmore said cost may be a consideration here. Mr. Lingle said the wall on the front garden may be shortened. The west one will be public and the east one will be for employees. Mr. Hogestad said he would like to see as much brick as possible in the new addition and thinks it looks great in general. Ms. Kullman asked if the freight car would really be installed. Mr. Lingle said it is not part of the funding but the intent would be to install the ties and rails and then either the City or Stormwater could place it. They are investigating Art in Public Places as a possible source. Ms. Carpenter asked if the interior bow string roof ghost arch will still be visible. Mr. Beardmore said it could be left uncleared. Mr. Lingle said that part of the brick will be left exposed and could be retained. However, in the conference room there is a dropped ceiling. Mr. Frick asked if they could angle the entrance io the conference room and save the main fire door. (The smaller fire door may be saved.) On the double hung windows, she would like to see restoring them be the first choice since they are mostly intact. Ms. Tunner reviewed the staff recommendation. She thought the Fort Collins sign should be saved. Ms. Tunner noted that Depot Park existed across the street and was planted in yellow marigolds which spelled out Fort Collins. This could be incorporated in the landscape. 201 S. COLLEGE, THE POST OFFICE Mr. Dick Hill introduced Ms. Angela Brayham, the Executive Director of One West. The proposal is for maintenance and repair rather than any additions or changes to the structure. The budget comes from a CDBG and Colorado Historic Society Grant as well as locally raised money. Great attention is being paid to historical accuracy. Most importantly, the roof requires maintenance. The flat roof will get an EPDM membrane and new flashing. Mr. Hill said any roof tile replacement will be matched for color, type, and size and will Landmark Preservation Commission Regular Meeting Minutes August 8, 1995 Page 6 be from salvaged tile in Denver. He proposes to use tiles from the back of the building as a "boneyard" for the more visible parts of the building and replace the scavenged tile areas with salvage from elsewhere because the changes color as it ages. This will give the best match on the more visible parts of the roof. The gutter requires restoration. He proposes to line the gutter with a stiff EPDM material. The downspouts need a pressure test and repairs where necessary. There are pockets of deterioration on the stonework. The second priority is repairing the soffit. Some roses under the roof are missing and need replacement. If they cannot afford plaster, the coffered ceiling may be left blank and west side roses be used on the north, south, and east sides. They may be able to have roses installed later through fund raising. Four bracket tongues are missing around the building. If they cannot afford to replace the ones no longer there, they could be done later and the brackets smoothed flat for now. At least 19 tongues need repairs. The third priority is to paint 7 windows which were chemically stripped last September. James Stratis approved that they weather until now. The next priority is looking at the stone. The limestone is relatively clean, according to a firm which did an evaluation for One West, and can therefore be lightly cleaned with a non -intrusive chemical. It would have minimal degradation of the stone. They would like to fill the holes which have been drilled in the facade. Ms. Carpenter suggested leaving the chip where the previous owner tried to pry out the cornerstone prior to demolition. Mr. Hill is suggesting that the woodwork be painted brown as it was historically. They would like to scrub and paint soffits if possible. The doors also require paint. Last would be a scrub of the limestone and a wash of the granite base. The crushed cinder on the roof will be removed. Ms. Carpenter asked how much could be done realistically. Mr. Hill said they could do the roof and soffits, and the roses and tongues could at least be smoothed. He hopes they can paint the windows. Mr. Hoaglund asked if they could temporarily use an epoxy for consolidation of the tongues but Mr. Hill didn't know. There are 360 tongues on the building. Mr. Beardmore said they are doing castings with the miners in Silverton who are being trained in restoration techniques. He will check and see if he can get an estimated price for casting the missing roses. Ms. Carpenter feels that using existing tiles from the roof would give a good color match and liked using the west side as a "boneyard" for the tile. She also felt that the masonry repair and cleaning should be considered for conceptual approval but the other aspects of the proposal could be considered for final approval. The new brown paint color can be approved as an alternate to the black which was approved earlier because it is a warm color which will be a better match to the existing stone and reveal the tongue and rose detailing better. The lighter color would be the preferred alternate. Mr. Frick moved to approve the application as submitted for final approval except for cleaning and sealing of the building, which will be heard in the future, and moved approval of the color for frieze, soffit, medallions etc., with chocolate brown as the preferred alternate to the original black color. Ms. Kullman seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Landmark Preservation Commission Regular Meeting Minutes August 8,1995 Page 7 LINDEN'S and BOURBON STREET, 208-214 LINDEN Stephan Mejia and Tom Kalert presented. (Tommy Short, Maggie Kunze, and Pat Stryker left just prior to this part of the agenda). The owners would like to have patio seating and a railing for Linden's and Bourbon Street. They would like an awning at Linden's which looks like piano keys which is not the usual 45 degree retractable awning but is 60 degrees and on a fixed frame. For Bourbon Street, they would like to add iron window boxes under the second floor windows, and iron `S' bars over the first floor transom windows. They will be screwed into the building. Staff feels it would like to find a way to create the atmosphere but not have the Colorado 1880's building try to look like New Orleans. Mr. Tom Kalert said they would like to make the changes without overpowering the facade. He said the wrought iron would not have to be mounted into the masonry. He said the keyboard awning is intended to function as a sign. They would like to use the keyboard motif as a logo in advertising, without having to say Linden's. It will replace the existing noncompliant awning. The new one is Sunbrella fabric and not shiny. Mr. Frick asked about lighting. There is an existing street light so no lighting will be used on the awning. He thinks the awning should be more traditional but the piano concept is good. He would like the awning to be placed at 45 degrees and be retractable. He feels the Bourbon Street patio is fine and thought the owners could put decorations in the windows but not on the outside with iron. Ms. Kullman said the "s" bars do not comply with guideline #2. She also supports the patio. She feels that changing the front of the building would be akin to modernizations that have happened in the past and is therefore not in favor of the ironwork. Mr. Hoaglund supports the patio and the 45 degree awning, but does not like the iron work. Some sort of awning would be fine instead of the iron work. Mr. Frick said the two trees in front of the building will lose the effect of the window boxes. They could get the same effect with the patio furniture and awnings. They could also get effects with the window decorations at street level. Ms. Carpenter apologized for getting behind at the beginning of the meeting so that Mr. Short was unable to be here and asked that he please call if he has questions. She noted that the iron work is not in compliance with the guidelines. She commented that there is a standard patio fencing that is used in the other Old Town patios which, if used here, would have the intended effect of extending the square down Linden Street, which was one of the goals of renovating Linden Street. However, Landmark Preservation Commission Regular Meeting Minutes August 8, 1995 Page 8 the patio railing is reversible and does not attach to the building. She would like the owners to know this and consider it. Mr. Mejia asked if the LPC could do a final approval of the patio so they could leave it installed for New West Fest. Mr. Frick said they could approve it with the standard fence. Mr. Hoaglund said he thought their proposed fence would be acceptable because it would give individuality and has been allowed in the past. Mr. Frick suggested the Old Town green instead of black but Ms. Tunner said there are some others which are black. Mr. Hogestad asked about the railing. Mr. Mejia proposed that the board approve the standard Old Town design for installation. If Mr. Short does not approve, he could return to the next meeting with a proposal. Mr. Frick suggested a sign for Bourbon Street rather than an awning. He noted that he would like more detail on how the Linden's awning will attach to the building. Mr Frick moved approval of the patio as shown on the proposed sidewalk plan using the standard circle -top Old Town fence in either black or Old Town Green. He needs an accurate section of the awning, with dimensions of where it ends and how it attaches. Mr. Hogestad suggested Coopersmith's as the standard for the specifications, which was accepted as a friendly amendment. Ms. Kullman seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Mr. Kalert asked about the awning. He will pick up copies of the previously approved awning from staff and give details of attachment, overall dimensions and how it fits within the facade. Mr. Hogestad said they would like to see a valance on the awning. It could be straight or scalloped. OTHER BUSINESS: 221-227 JEFFERSON STREET JEFFERSON BLOCK Mr. Hogestad said the LPC Design Sub -Committee looked at the trial window transom which Mr. Strouse has installed. He feels the material and color are fine. However, the width of the stiles is too large. They must be reduced to the same size stiles in the existing windows. He has installed the transom out to be lined up with the screen. The transom is tinted dark whereas it is lined up with a light screen. He is obliged to set the transom back. The whole window must look the same. Ms. Carpenter said he was required to provide drawings for the LPC to give final approval. The jamb, the head, and the sill of both profiles must match. There will still be a window frame. The transom will be set back. It must be the same profile. Mr. Frick said that Mr. Strouse did not provide any drawings. The chair of the LPC and two architects offered to meet with him but he did not appear at the scheduled time and place. Ms. Tunner asked to cancel the August 26, 1995 LPC meeting and the Commission agreed. Ms. Carpenter announced that she is on the City Plan Advisory Committee so members may bring concerns they would like for her to raise. The meeting adjourned at 9:20 pm. Submitted by Diane Slater, Secretary.