Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 03/14/1995Zi LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting March 14, 1995 Council Liaison: Gina Janett Staff Liaison: Joe Frank SUMMARY OF MEETING: The LPC approved the plans as submitted for the kickplates at 154-156 North College Avenue and approved final plans for this rehabilitation of the Trolley Barn at 330 North Howes Street. The LPC discussed the remaining applications for the Landmark Rehabilitation Grant Program and then the Eastside-Westside Design Guidelines. 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, Per Hogestad, Jean Kullman, James Tanner, and Ruth Weatherford were present. Carl McWilliams arrived at 6:15 pm. Bud Frick was absent. Carol Tunner represented staff. GUESTS: Michelle Gates, journalism student; Ted and Ellen Zibell, owners of 154-156 North College Avenue; Jeff Bridges, homeowner of 725 Mathews; Wendy Irving -Mills, Facilities Planner Schedular; and Theresa Lucero, Planner. AGENDA REVIEW: The presentation by Mike Powers was postponed. STAFF REPORT: Ms.Tunner distributed copies of the Procedural Due Process booklet for the Commission and copies of Mr. Frank's letter to Mr. Alan Krckmarik, Finance Director, regarding the final approval of the Linden Hotel Renovation. Ms. Tunner reported that the CPI luncheon was well attended. She networked with the Historic Preservation groups in Boulder, especially Ms. Katherine Barth, a Boulder architect, who suggested that the Boulder and Fort Collins groups get together this summer in a field trip of Fort Collins to discuss preservation. COMMISSION MEMBERS' REPORTS: Mr. Hogestad reported that he made an itemized list for Mr. Frank of items which were to be completed to the trade standard. Ms. Carpenter announced an upcoming tour of the Harmony corridor area on Friday, March 31 st. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None to approve. CURRENT DESIGN REVIEW: 154-156 North College, Storefront Rehabilitation, Final Review Ted and Ellen Zibell announced that the facade has been removed to reveal stucco over the brick. The brick is not original but from approximately the 1950's and the stucco is well adhered so that if Landmark Preservation Commission Regular Meeting Minutes March 14, 1995 Page 2 they try to remove the stucco, the brick will be damaged. Therefore, they are considering bricking over the stucco. The Commission asked if the interior was a solid brick wall and if it appeared to be original brick. Mr. Hogestad suggested that the pilasters may contain original brick to try to match. The Commission had no objection to refacing with an historic face brick. Mr. Hogestad suggested drawing a section to show the desired corbelling. Mr. Tanner recommended using flashing at the base of the kickplate to deter water, although the kickplate is slightly elevated. Ms. Weatherford moved approval of plans for the kickplates as submitted by the applicants. Ms. Kullman seconded the motion which passed unanimously, 5-0. Mr. McWilliams arrived. 330 NORTH HOWES. TROLLEY BARN REHABILITATION Ms. Irving -Mills showed the drawing known as Option #2 at Conceptual Review. The City has consulted with the Center for Stabilization on the rehabilitation. First, they are requesting that the northside door be replaced due to excessive deterioration and a need for security. Also, this door is not the original and they have been unable to determine its original appearance. Mr.Tanner pointed out an inconsistency between written report, which states the door is laminated stock with soft maple veneers and the letter from Pro Door, which states they will use solid maple. Ms. Irving -Mills said that the door will indeed be solid maple, not veneers. Ms. Tunner noted discrepancies in the diagonal paneling between the two door drawings. Second, they are requesting boarding up all windows and painting them to match the green trim because the fancier paint job was $10,000. Plywood will be used. Mr. Hogestad asked if the panels will be mounted to the existing frames and Ms. Irving -Mills said there will be an interior frame so no fasteners will be on the frames and they will leave all the original glass they can. Third, they will repair masonry by selective replacement, tuckpointing and application of a breathable water repellent to all brick surfaces. They have enough funding to do the east and north walls this year but will need further funding in 1995 to complete the south and west walls. Mr. Tanner moved approval of the proposed rehabilitation/restoration of the trolley barn as proposed. Ms. Weatherford seconded the motion which passed unanimously, 6-0. DISCUSSION ITEMS: LANDMARK REHABILITATION GRANT PROGRAM Ms. Lucero presented the applications which required further information before they could be presented. Landmark Preservation Commission Regular Meeting Minutes March 14, 1995 Page 3 613 SOUTH COLLEGE, CANINO'S The Commission suggested that in the future, the applicant be required to submit slides rather than poor reproductions of polaroid photos and that the forms must be typed rather than handwritten. The Commission determined that Canino's would be eligible for local landmark status and is listed on page B9 of the HRPPP. Alteration minor Neglect moderate, due to structural problems Adverse none Plans none Other none Necessity 6 Effort 0 Matching 1 Total 7 Although masonry and gutter work was determined eligible for the grant money, power washing the brick requires some review. 218 WALNUT STREET, SILVER GRILL Ms. Weatherford said that a letter should be sent to all approved applicants stating that approved grant request is contingent upon their applying for and receiving local landmark designation; completing the design review process prior to beginning work; that approval of the grant does not guarantee approval of all elements proposed in the grant, which must still be submitted for design review; their workplan and costs may be revised when they come in for design review and must meet the design guidelines; and grant money will be released only when the work is complete. Ms. Lucero will show a draft of such a letter to the City Attorney before returning to the Commission on the 28th. This structure is a contributing building in the historic district. However, Mr. Tanner said that the proposed work appears to be maintenance rather than restoration. Ms. Weatherford said that the kickplate addition, removing the checkerboard pattern, and rebuilding the transom. were historic. Mr. Tanner said that work eligible to meet the matching funds would include the $10,000 for repainting and $2500 for transom but not the $3,000 for awnings or $750 for stucco work. Alteration moderate Necessity 6 Neglect none Effort 4 Adverse none Matching 4 Plans none Other none Total 14 Landmark Preservation Commission Regular Meeting Minutes March 14, 1995 Page 4 1310 LAPORTE AVENUE, CRIBARI Mr. Cribari is proposing to reroof the structure, which is listed in the BRPPP and therefore eligible for landmark designation. Mr. Tanner again said that the Commission needs to be clear on the difference between maintenance and preservation and next year's applicants should have a clearer statement of what is required of them in order for their work to be considered restoration or rehabilitation. Restoration is considered to be recreating the structure as it was originally, such as installing a wood roof. Roof is listed as an eligible exterior improvement. Alteration moderate Neglect minor Adverse none Plans none Other none Necessity 3 Effort 0 Matching 2 Total 5 426 PETERSON, CROISSANT The applicant is proposing reroofing with fiberglass of a type that gives the appearance of wooden shingles. Mr. Tanner said that the brochure should be explicit that what's required is not just replacing the roof but that the roof be part of an overall rehabilitation. Also, grant applications which are rejected should receive a personal letter giving the reasons for the rejection and encouraging the applicant to apply for landmark designation and future grants. Ms. Carpenter suggested the addition of a staff report summary, such as what the applicant is asking for, on future applications. Alteration minor Neglect minor Adverse none Plans none Other none Necessity 3 Effort 2 Matching 4 Total 9 Four types of roof proposals which could be used for rating the effort to return the structure to its original character could be asphalt, none; fiberglass composition with texture, minor; wood composition, moderate; and wood shingles, high. Landmark Preservation Commission Regular Meeting Minutes March 14, 1995 Page 5 216 WEST MYRTLE, LOUGHRY The Commission determined the structure eligible as it appears on page B5 of the HRPPP and it is in a district which is eligible. The applicant wishes to replace original windows but the LPC recommended against this action and suggested that he repair and rebuild sashes to get a better seal, which would be eligible under the grant and install interior storms, which would be eligible for the match. The problem with weatherseals in older homes is not remedied by replacing the windows but rather by repairing the seals and gaps around the window. Alteration none Neglect none Adverse none Plans none Other none Necessity 0 Effort 0 Matching 1 Total 1 318 SOUTH SHERWOOD, FRENCH In the absence of material documenting the eligibility of the structure requested of the applicant, Mr. McWilliams said he had looked at the house and thought it had good integrity and was in a potential historic district and was therefore eligible. However, because the Commission did not have sufficient information as requested, the application could not be rated. 628 WEST MOUNTAIN, RAHNE The home is located within a potential landmark district and was determined to be eligible for local landmark status. The applicants are requesting funds for lights and tuckpointing. Since electrical work is eligible for the match, the fixtures would be eligible for the match. The tuckpointing is eligible for the grant. The gutter work is not eligible for the grant or match. The Commission saw some effort to rehabilitate in this proposed work. Alteration minor Neglect none Adverse none Plans none Other none Necessity 3 Effort 2 for this project Landmark Preservation Commission Regular Meeting Minutes March 14, 1995 Page 6 Matching 2 Total 6 211 WEST MULBERRY, MOVING TO 629 WEST MOUNTAIN, HAIMSON/ROGERS The building at 211 West Mulberry is eligible for landmark status but the applicants have been unable to get the owner's signature on the application for landmark status. The approval of this grant application is contingent upon buying the building. Alteration minor Neglect high Adverse high Plans high Other none Necessity 9 Effort 4 Matching 4 Total 17 Ms.Tunner and Ms.Lucero will review all applications for consistency before the 28th. Citizen comment was solicited. Mr. Bridges said that the Eastside-Westside Guidelines cover all of the questions raised this evening but it will not be out until June. However, it will be useful next year. The Commission also felt that the brochure should be reworded to include the importance of the eligible exterior improvement being done as part of a general rehabilitation effort, so that applicants understand that not all improvements are covered. Mr. McWilliams mentioned that gutters may be covered if the foundation is being replaced due to water damage from lack of gutters. OTHER BUSINESS: EASTSIDE WESTSIDE DESIGN GUIDELINES Ms. Carpenter reported that Karla Oceanik had contacted her regarding confusion regarding the application of the ES/WS design guidelines. The intent of the Commission is that the guidelines cover historic structures and districts beyond the Laurel School Historic District and apply to the scale and mass of new construction in the older sections of town as well. Ms. Carpenter will contact Mr. Blanchard and the consultant to come to a clear understanding. Staff will report on the source of all monies for the guidelines and the substance of the contract. The next neighborhood meetings will be April 3. Ms. Carpenter said that State Historical Fund grants do not need to be prioritized unless there is more than one application from the same applicant. Landmark Preservation Commission Regular Meeting Minutes March 14, 1995 Page 7 Ms. Carpenter raised the question of how the LPC would like to handle requests for letters of support from the LPC. This will be discussed further. Ms. Tunner said that she would appreciate nominations for the upcoming Friend of Preservation Awards, She is suggesting Veldman/Morgan for the Linden and the Troutman House. The meeting adjourned at 9:05 pm. Submitted by Diane Slater, Secretary.