Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 03/28/1995• LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Special Business Meeting March 28, 1995 Council Liaison: Gina Janett Staff Liaison: Joe Frank SUMMARY OF MEETING: The Commission approved the following requests for funding from the Rehabilitation Grant Program: Children's Mercantile; Harmony Mill; Silver Grill; Canino's; 425 E. Elizabeth; 211 W. Mulberry; 518 Peterson; 725 Mathews; 2513 W. Prospect; 103 N. Sherwood, 629 W. Mountain, 2600 Cedarwood Drive and denied funding requests for 1310 Laporte; 628 W. Mountain; 426 Peterson; 216 West Myrtle; and 318 South Sherwood. The Commission made recommendations for the upcoming Friend 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, Carl McWilliams, James Tanner, and Ruth Weatherford were present. Bud acted as citizen for the Rehabilitation Grant Program portion. Jean Kullman arrived later. Joe Frank and Carol Tunner represented staff. GUESTS: Rheba Massey, Local History Coordinator at the Public Library; Theresa Lucero, City Planner; and Kate Malers, owner of 518 Peterson. AGENDA REVIEW: No changes. STAFF REPORT: Ms. Tunner announced the private parry Grand Opening of the Linden Hotel on Friday, April 28 from 4-8 pm and there will be a public parry on Saturday the 29th from 12-4. COMMISSION MEMBERS' REPORTS: None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None to approve. CURRENT DESIGN REVIEW: None. DISCUSSION ITEMS: REHABILITATION GRANT PROGRAM Ms. Lucero stated that the total of the applications amounted to $ 38,574.00 with $14,219 for commercial and $24,354.63 for residential. If all of the money is not spent, it will still be available for other projects, such as survey work or other specific projects. The applications will be presented in order of points assigned and each one voted on as presented, in case specific stipulations are Landmark Preservation Commission Special Business Meeting Minutes March 28, 1995 Page 2 required. Ms. Lucero will check if a member with a conflict of interest should abstain from all discussion. All applicants who receive an award will receive a letter of standard stipulations. Staff will meet with all awardees to review the process. THE CHIIAREN'S MERCANTILE. The Commission asked if there were problems with overlapping grants and Ms. Lucero will check on it. They are applying for $2,000 for lintels and sills for windows. Ms. Weatherford moved approval of the application from Children's Mercantile subject to the standard stipulations and Ms. Kullman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. HARMONY MILL. Ms. Lucero said they will be receiving $40,000 from the DDA. Ms. Weatherford moved approval of the grant application subject to the standard stipulations. Mr. Hogestad seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. SILVER GRILL. Mr. Frick pointed out that the stucco is over 50 years old and has therefore achieved significance in its own right. Ms. Carpenter said she feels that it is significant in its current state with the stucco from the 1940's. The stucco repair is not necessary to meet the match. Ms. Massey commented that the stucco is the most important part to be restored because it is the part which carries significance at this point in time and is over 50 years old. It is unique as a 30's-40's diner so it is appropriate to fund the stucco. The transom, repainting, and stucco will meet the match but the awnings will not. Mr. McWilliams moved approval of the application of the Silver Grill Cafe with the standard stipulation and the stipulation that the awnings are not eligible for grant or match money. Ms. Kullman seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. CANINO'S. Ms. Turner is concerned that the power washing will be too powerful for the brick. Mr. Tanner is concerned that this work does not involve restoration or rehabilitation, is really maintenance, and is not in the spirit of the program. Ms. Weatherford asked about the tuckpointing but Mr. Tanner felt it would be eligible only if it were part of a rehabilitation program. Ms. Carpenter said she feels that the structural problems threaten the building. Mr. Hogestad said he feels there is a reasonable restoration/preservation effort. Ms. Carpenter said that part of the design review can stipulate that the applicant use a smaller psi to wash the building. Ms. Lucero read from the application which states that the work will help preserve the building. Mr. Frick and Mr. Tanner feel that the grant program is for rehabilitation, rather than maintenance. Mr. Frank asked if this is periodic maintenance. Ms. Tunner said that building new gutters to preserve the foundation is rehabilitation, not just average maintenance and that cleaning and tuckpointing is also rehabilitation. Ms. Carpenter read the definition of rehabilitation --which involves returning a building to a state • Landmark Preservation Commission Special Business Meeting Minutes March 28, 1995 Page 3 which makes contemporary use possible while still preserving features of the property which make it significant. Most good preservation projects may be considered rehabilitation. Citizen input was solicited. Ms. Massey said that this project would qualify for a Colorado Historic grant. Adverse impacts on the building from lack of gutters, can be a preservation necessity. She noted that at the state level, the applicant is asked what other funds they have applied for and are there other ways to get this done and will it not get done if this grant does not pay for it. Ms. Tunner said that the owner has planned to make these repairs for many years but has been unable to afford it. Mr. Tanner does not want the grant to become a lucrative place for maintenance and repairs. Mr. Frick asked what sort of gutters would be used and recommended that they be appropriate to the historic nature of the building. Ms. Weatherford moved approval of the application for grant money subject to the standard stipulations and subject to more information about the power washing. Mr. Hogestad seconded the motion, which passed 5-1. Ayes: Hogestad, Kullman, McWilliams, Weatherford, Carpenter. Nay: Tanner. 425 E. ELIZABETH. Mr. Tanner moved approval of the application for rehabilitation and preservation of the house. Mr. McWilliams seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Ms. Tunner noted that it is a re-creation of the original porch. 211 WEST MULBERRY. The applicants still need the owner's signature for the house to be designated. The applicants have been unable to get in touch with the owner through the broker. Mr. Hogestad moved approval of the application with the stipulation that the LPC get the signature of the owner for designation. Ms. Kullman seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. 518 PETERSON STREET. The applicant was available to answer questions. Ms. Lucero said photos show the original porch smaller but there is now a larger foundation. The LPC had recommended taking it back to the original smaller porch but staff recommended taking it back to the original design of the porch but keep the larger size. The applicant agreed with the staff recommendation, noting that it would be difficult to remove the foundation. Mr. Tanner said that the turned posts could be slightly heavier than what was there originally to balance the increased size. Ms. Massey said that the railing will balance the look so it will not be out of proportion. Ms. Carpenter said this can be covered in the design review. Ms. Tunner said guideline #6 recommends against replacing the original style --a turned column with a Doric style --a different non -original style. Ms. Lucero said the other elements such as the front door and screen could be covered at design review and the awnings and shutters would not be eligible for matching funds. Ms. Weatherford moved approval of 518 Peterson subject to the standard stipulations and Landmark Preservation Commission Special Business Meeting Minutes March 28, 1995 Page 4 subject to taking the porch back to the original porch design and leaving the concrete foundation. Mr. Hogestad seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. 725 MATHEWS. The front porch electrical and fixtures are not eligible for grant monies but may be used for matching funds. Ms. Lucero asked if the building is individually eligible or eligible as part of a district. It is part of a national district but not a local district. Since the national district is of a higher level than the local district, is it therefore eligible. Mr. McWilliams and Mr. Frank said it is not automatically eligible. Ms. Tunner and Ms. Carpenter said they felt in this case, the building is individually eligible. Ms. Massey said that it is eligible based on its geographical importance even if a house is not distinguished by other features. The significance is derived from the importance of the development of the local neighborhood if the building still maintains its integrity. The significance of the neighborhood is its vernacular architecture. Not every structure in the neighborhood may be eligible if they do not maintain integrity. Mr. McWilliams agreed. Mr. McWilliams moved approval of the application with the standard stipulations and the stipulations that the front porch electrical and fixture is not eligible for theGrant monies, but is eligible for matching funds. Ms. Weatherford seconded the motion which passed unanimously. 2513 WEST PROSPECT. Ms. Weatherford moved approval of the application subject to the standard stipulations. Ms. Kullman seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. 103 NORTH SHERWOOD. The applicant is stripping and painting the house, which is covered with many layers of old paint. Ms. Tunner said this is not routine maintenance and Mr. Tanner said it is rehabilitation due to the extent of the painting. Ms. Weatherford moved to recommend to the City Manager approval of the application. subject to the standard stipulations. Mr. Hogestad seconded the motion, saying that is beyond maintenance. The motion passed unanimously. 1310 LAPORTE. The applicant is replacing the roof with materials that do not look like wood. Ms. Weatherford commented that this application offers an opportunity for education. Mr. Frick mentioned Heritage Prestik 3, asphalt which simulates wood. It is a tile, concrete, wood, and masonite mixture. Ms. Carpenter said that the LPC must set criteria based on the wood shingle. Mr. Frank said that the design guidelines could suggest a palette of acceptable materials. Ms. Carpenter said the Commission should get examples of roofing and go out to see places where it is installed. Mr. Tanner suggested that the LPC be consistent and require authentic wood shingles since wood is required on windows but especially not allow asphalt, which has only stylistic echoes of wood. Ms. Tunner said the NPS applies the arm's length rule to windows but not to roofs. Ms. Carpenter pointed out that the LPC did go to City Council specifically to ask for a roofing exemption for historic houses because it is important that historic buildings have wood roofs. Mr. Frank noted that Landmark Preservation Commission Special Business Meeting Minutes March 28, 1995 Page 5 this building has a lower level of threat. Ms. Carpenter read from the consultant's recommendations in the Eastside-Westside Design Guidelines. Regarding roofs, the proposed guidelines state that original wood roods should be preserved when feasible. Where replacement is necessary, materials similar to the original should be used. "Low profile asphalt shingles may be appropriate." Ms. Ttmner will check with the consultant to see if this is an typographical error. The Commission discussed the price differential between wood and other types of roofs. Mr. Tanner moved that the Commission deny all requests for roofing that are not done with wood shingles at least for this year. Mr. McWilliams felt this was a design review issue. There was no second. Ms. Kullman moved to reject the application on the grounds that the preservation necessity is low, the effort to return the structure to its original appearance is low, and the applicant's matching funds are also low. Ms. Weatherford seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. 628 WEST MOUNTAIN. The Commission discussed the level of threat and necessity and decided that in this case, the gutters are routine maintenance. Mr. Tanner moved to reject the proposal because it involves routine maintenance that is not rehabilitation or restoration. Ms. Weatherford seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. 426 PETERSON. W. McWilliams noted that this house was rated with a minor preservation necessity and a minor effort to return the house to its original state. The question is, is it part of a larger rehabilitation effort and does the roof restore it. They are not doing any other work and the they are not replacing with a wood roof. Ms. Kullman said that she would be more comfortable if this was a proposal for a larger rehabilitation and this was the first part of further planned work. She did not see an effort to restore. Ms. Carpenter said that the roof replacement is roof maintenance, is not a restoration of historic materials, and the structure is not threatened. She would like to see the LPC grant pay for the difference between a wood roof and asphalt shingles. Mr. Hogestad said that these reasons should be made clear to the applicants. In response to a request for public input, Ms. Malers stated that she felt that the LPC should be stringent in not dispensing money for routine maintenance of repairs which are the responsibility of the owner. Mr. McWilliams moved to recommend to deny the application based on the minor preservation necessity and the minor effort to return the structure to original appearance. Ms. Landmark Preservation Commission Special Business Meeting Minutes March 28, 1995 Page 6 Weatherford seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. 216 WEST MYRTLE. Mr. McWilliams moved to deny the application based on the low preservation necessity and no effort to preserve the original appearance of the house, in fact the opposite. Ms. Weatherford seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. 318 S SHERWOOD. The applicant proposes to replace the windows. Ms. Weatherford moved to recommend to reject the application due to the windows not being appropriate, not having complete information about the cost, an incomplete form, not taking the house back to its original appearance, and a low preservation necessity. Mr. Hogestad seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Mr. Frank said that the LPC funded ten requests, five of which were previously designated and five were new designations. Ms. Kullman feels that the funds were well leveraged. Ms.Tunner asked if the LPC requires restoration and Mr. McWilliams said no, it is preferred though. However, if they are requesting a grant, it may be required. FRIENDS OF PRESERVATION AWARDS This year, the following projects will receive awards --the Linden Hotel, the Troutman House, and the Sugar Beet Factory. Ms. Tunner showed slides of the Troutman House, which was moved to Hwy 1 by County Road 56E as well as the restoration of the Sugar Beet Factory for use by City of Fort Collins Facilities. The Linden Award will go to Veldman/Morgan, the City Council, and the DDA. OTHER BUSINESS: The meeting adjourned at 8 pm. Submitted by Diane Slater, Secretary.