Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 02/27/2002P LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting February 27, 2002 Minutes Council Liaison: Eric Hamrick (225-2343) Staff Liaison: Joe Frank (221-6376) Commission Chairperson: Per Hogestad (416-7285) SUMMARY OF MEETING: The LPC took a field trip to 1745 S. Hoffman Mill Road, and later approved the replacement of the stucco at 1745 Hoffman Mill Road, the Nix Farm, with the stipulation that the inside front porch be preserved for display and color matching. The Old Fort Site Cultural Survey Project was presented and comments were solicited from the Commission. FIELD TRIP TO NIX FARM, 1745 HOFFMAN MILL ROAD AT 4:30 P.M., ENDING 5:45 P.M. Present: Mark Sears, Natural Resources Program Manager, Steve White, Operations Services Project Manager, Pete Cottier, General Contractor, Ian Shuff, Aller-Lingle Architects, Kurt Anderson, Job Superintendent, Marc Fields of Monarch Stucco Inc., LPC Members -Per Hogestad, Myrne Watrous, Carole Stansfield, Agnes Dix, Janet Ore. Absent: Bud Frick and Angie Aguilera. Minutes taken by Staff: Carol Tunner. WEST HOUSE: Standing with the Commission on the south side of the large Craftsman (west) house at the Nix Farm, architect, Ian Shuff, described the problems that had caused the deterioration of the stucco on this side of the house. He listed that this was a sunny drier side, there was no flashing used in the original construction, and water had gotten behind the stucco. Janet Ore asked about what was inside. Mr. Shuff explained that the house was an original two- story square, and add-ons were built on all sides over the original clapboard siding. Carole Stansfield asked about the vertical pipe on the south side and would it be removed. It was identified as a lighting rod that would be removed. Mr. Shuff explained that the water intrusion loosens the stucco, which falls off, and exposes that the metal lath underneath which is rusted. The main problem is the water got in between and behind the stucco. It got in the window headers and also cracks are coming off the windows and doors. Mr. White brought up that if they would be allowed to re -install the stucco, they would like to use a modern method of expansion joints to better preserve the stucco. Mr. Fields explained that the expansion joints come vertically off the corners of openings. He described them as 3/8" to ''/z" wide stripes of metal, the same color as the wall — a v joint left open. Mr. Cottier brought up another point that a big problem has been that the stucco comes right down to the porch roof, and water was able to flow behind the stucco that way. Mr. Shuff said that they propose now to stop the stucco 1 ''/2" up and white flashing Landmark Preservation Commisss • February 27, 2002 Meeting Minutes Page 2 would be used. This also makes it accessible for new roofing in the future. On the west side, the front porch, the LPC was shown where insulation holes had been punched in the stucco and filled inappropriately. The stucco isn't as bad here because the porch had been enclosed. It was asked if this area could be preserved and not reinstalled, and the answer was yes. The north side of the building is the worst because of storms coming in from the northwest. Also the chimney was stuccoed originally and moisture from combustion in the chimney seeped through the brick to crack the stucco exterior. The Portland cement stucco does not breathe the moisture. Mr. Shuff said they are converting the fireplace to a gas log system, and lining the chimney to prevent this problem in the future. Inside the east entry into the kitchen, the LPC saw the exposed original house corner, white lap siding and dark green cornerboard. There is a water tank up in the rafters which represents some sort of early water supply system. The LPC was told it would stay. The LPC saw that the foundation of the building was very poor, on logs, rubble, and in some cases, nothing. EAST HOUSE: The LPC convened in front of the east farmhouse. Mr. Sears said that they had inadvertently torn off the vestibule or airlock on the front of this building. In an earlier visit with staff, they had misunderstood a comment that it was non -historic, and thought they had the right to remove it when they were trying to clean up the area. The LPC didn't have a problem with this, but Ms. Watrous commented that the horseshoe on the wall next to the door should stay. Minutes prepared by Carol Tunner, Staff. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Commission was called to order at 6:00 p.m. Commission members Per Hogestad, Agnes Dix, W.J. "Bud" Frick, Janet Ore, Carole Stansfield, and Myrne Watrous were present. Angie Aguilera was absent. Timothy Wilder, City Planner, was also in attendance. Carol Tunner and Timothy Wilder represented staff. GUESTS: Steve White, Project Manager for the city, and Ian Shuff, architect with Aller- Lingle, for 1745 Hoffman Mill Road. Karen Joslin-Aurid and Jason Marmor for the Old Fort Site Project. AGENDA REVIEW: No changes. STAFF REPORTS: Carol Tunner handed out a "Presentation Issues" meetings sign-up sheet from Karen McWilliams. Landmark Preservation Commissse February 27, 2002 Meeting Minutes Page 3 COMMISSION MEMBERS' REPORTS: None. • APPROVAL OF MINUTES: November 2811 minutes. Two paragraphs on the last page of the minutes were the same, and will be removed. Mr. Frick moved that the minutes be approved as amended. Seconded by Ms. Dix, and approved unanimously, 6-0. Ms. Stansfield asked why the minutes were so late. Ms. Tunner replied that the secretary will try to be more timely. CURRENT REVIEW: 1) 1745 Hoffman Mill Road, Nix Farm. The applicants, Steve White, Operation Services Project Manager and Ian Shuff of Aller-Lingle Architects, have asked the LPC to consider full replacement of the exterior stucco on the Craftsman (west) farmhouse at the Nix Farm. The LPC asked for further information on the existing condition of the stucco, and if there were any logical starting and stopping points in order to preserve as much historic fabric as possible. Mr. White explained that a lot of water damage has occurred through the years, and the resultant freeze -thaw cracking. There are no expansion joints and the roofs come right into the stucco, where water wicks up into the stucco. He wants to replace the stucco, leaving a 1'/2 inch gap with the roof. He would like to: 1) Remove and replace all of the stucco on the house, using three coats of Portland cement. The last coat will have aggregate in it to get the correct texture. The stucco contractor feels he can match the color, and will take off a large panel and save it for comparison to the new color. 2) He would like to use expansion joints every 140 square feet, and step flashing on the rake of the roofs. Mr. Shuff said that the stucco contractor (Monarch Stucco) said a Portland cement base was pretty common at that time, and is best in order to prevent failure again -- they will also use expansion joints and flashing, and will hold the stucco up off the lower roofs. Mr. Hogestad asked if they would supply drawings of the expansion joint layout. Mr. Shuff replied that he would, and would also indicate the flashing areas. Mr. Ore said that the issue in question is really about the removal of the historic fabric. She said that it's not comparable to wood siding, where areas will deteriorate, and can be replaced in spots, but this is not feasible with stucco. In that, you must take into consideration the condition of all of it. It's not sensible technologically to patch it. Ms. Watrous asked if the protected front porch could stay as it is. Mr. Shuff said that it could. Mr. Hogestad said they could use a control joint between the old and new stucco. He agreed with Ms. Ore. The substrate is compromised. To salvage one piece would compromise the entire structure. The building will last longer if it is done right. Mr. Frick added that patching would be a cold joint and never stick. He suggested that they leave the stucco inside the front porch so people could see the original stucco. Mr. Hogestad said that with proper detailing the building will last a lot longer. Ms. Ore said that she would feel a lot Landmark Preservation Commis February 27, 2002 Meeting Minutes Page 4 better about the project if the LPC had a detailed plan showing how it will look. She does not want it to look like Tudor Revival. Mr. Hogestad reiterated that redoing the stucco will allow the building to stand a lot longer. Ms. Ore replied that she just wants to see how it will be done. Mr. Shuff said that today they hold the stucco '% inch away from the openings and caulk it for expansion and contraction. Ms. Ore said she wants to see this on the diagram. Mr. Hogestad agreed that the LPC needs these details, like profile of the drip edge. Public input: none. Ms. Dix moved that the LPC accept the stucco replacement for the Craftsman west house, at 1745 Hoffman Mill Road, the Nix Farm, and anticipates drawings with the details. Ms. Ore seconded the motion. Mr. Hogestad amended the motion, that the stucco under the front porch overhang be preserved. Ms. Ore approved the friendly amendment. Mr. White said that the preserved stucco will serve as their control for the color of the replacement stucco. He asked what the LPC wants him to do with the final drawings. Mr. Hogestad said they could go to Ms. Tunner. She will send a copy of them to each of the LPC members and solicit comments. After that, she will take care of the rest administratively. The motion was approved unanimously, 5-0. (Mr. Frick did not vote, as he was not able to attend the field trip.) DISCUSSION ITEM: Old Fort Site Cultural Survey Project, Presented by Mr. Timothy Wilder, City Planner and Project Director Mr. Wilder introduced Mr. Jason Marmor, the Project Consultant, and Ms. Karen Joslin-Aured, Committee member representing the Historic Fort Collins Development Corporation. Mr. Wilder said this study was an outgrowth of the Downtown River Corridor Project. The Cultural Survey Project was intended to identify resources in the Old Town Fort Site, and an inventory of these historic resources was needed. The City received a $25,000 State grant and provided $10,000 in matching funds. Mr. Wilder described the survey process, and Mr. Marmor talked about the products that have been developed as a result of this study. The project has been assisted by a stakeholders group. An open house was held the previous week, and was attended by 40-50 people. Mr. Wilder expects that they may receive some comments in the next few weeks, and has received assistance from a self-selected team, including Ms. Joslin-Aured representing the Historic Fort Collins Development Corporation, Mr. Bill Sears, the head of the Property Owners' Association, and Mr. Jay Hardy, the Director of the DDA. This is the Landmark Preservation CommissiEtS February 27, 2002 Meeting Minutes Page 5 • first phase. The second phase may involve archeological testing and will plan for the protection of the resources. Mr. Wilder pointed out the study area, which is larger than the original fort site to include influences from the surrounding areas. The goals of the study are to get ahead of the course of development, and to gain understanding of the area in order to better protect it. Mr. Marmor discussed the products. To understand the context, they defined the study area and the theme the historical area represents, as well as the time period (1864-2002). The study area and theme (community development) were already defined, and they set the time period. The focus was the evolution of the defined environment, and they were not as concerned with the social history. It was the divided into sub -contexts organized around the theme or pattern of events. There is a listing of data gaps where the information was not available, and the work is based on secondary sources and readily available histories. There has been some primary research but primarily for the survey. Some of the 17 data gaps involve the city dump, millrace, and Quonset huts. They have developed 13 maps (none more than 13 years apart) based on existing maps. They have also created some base maps, entered lots and buildings, using John Grey's work. They also used Sanborn maps from 1886 to 1963. They gave the building footprints and outhouses and millrace. Color - coded land maps have also been used, and the team has produced map -by -map summaries to go with the graphics. There are, however, limitations to the maps, in that they wanted to plot river changes too. However, for this the historical mapping was questionable, so the river changes have been approximated. Sources included Sanborn maps, city directories, preservation offline files, newspaper articles and other secondary sources. These were then evaluated for significance at it was found that: 10 are eligible for local landmark status 19 are not eligible 5 still need additional data in order to evaluate them 4 are eligible for the National Register An inventory report will also be prepared. The next step is to seek the LPC's blessing on this context and surveys. They need to submit a report to the CHS by the end of April, and would like to have the LPC's comments as soon as possible. Mr. Wilder opened up the discussion for questions. Ms. Ore asked if they considered district eligibility. The buildings may be of lesser integrity, but fit district eligibility. Mr. Marmor said they did consider districts. His opinion was that there are not enough to make a district. _ Landmark Preservation Commissi n February 27, 2002 Meeting Minutes Page 6 • Mr. Hogestad said that he agreed with Ms. Ore. He sees some potential districts, like a railroad district, or other themes. Mr. Marmor said that he could possibly see a grain mill district, because there are a number of these. Ms. Ore asked if Mr. Dale Harkendorn, of the CHS, still use 50% or more for a district. Mr. Hogestad said he is concerned about dismissing the Quonset huts, as we have barely scratched the surface on that subject. The Quonset huts may be historically tied to the CSO airfield. It seems a shame that there has been so little study on them. Ms. Watrous asked if we could use this study to be pro -active. Mr. Frick said that this group is always re -active. Ms. Watrous said she is disturbed that so few properties are eligible for the local or state registries. Mr. Wilder said that there are few properties in the area, and many are modern. So, the eligibility numbers are significant considering how few properties there are. Mr. Marmor added that the Fort Site itself (the parade ground) is eligible in itself as an archeological property. Mr. Hogestad said that historic structures and redevelopment can co- exist. He believes that there is some protection here because things could become eligible with more research. Mr. Wilder said he sent the surveys to the property owners. They didn't object but did send in new information on their properties. Mr. Hogestad asked how much property is owned by U.P.? Mr. Wilder showed him on the map. Ms. Ore said she would like to explain her comments. She feels this is a well done report and the maps are good. In the National Historic Register context discussion, she'd like to see more primary sources. It would give us a rationale to stand on even though it might be ordinary looking. There was a tremendous WWII impact here —the Quonset huts are tied to this. People don't understand that unless something is visually exciting. We need some historiography to tie the theme to these buildings. Just a sentence or two would do it. Mr. Marmor said that there is a limited budget, and they tried not to digress too much. Ms. Ore asked if they couldn't just say that the buildings represent the aftermath of WWII and give a significance statement. They can keep it simple. Mr. Frick said they can expand on the railroad, truck industry, stock market crash, prohibition — all these elements impacted the area. Ms. Ore added that migrants — the new immigration coming in and taking over the agricultural work — this has changed the area. Mr. Wilder asked if the LPC believes they should address that issue, going into some of the sub -contexts and look for buildings and trends? Ms. Ore said it is easier than that. To strengthen our argument it is just necessary to add one paragraph. This is part of a broader pattern that affected Fort Collins. Ms. Watrous said that on the maps, page 6, the name of the golf course is Link-n- Greens. Mr. Wilder asked if the LPC would like the survey pages re -numbered. Mr. Hogestad said that yes, if it's ready. Ms. Stansfield asked if there is a land ownership map to see who owns what. Could we have a map color -coded? Mr. Wilder said he could provide that for the next meeting. They will have ownership • Landmark Preservation Commiss1015 February 27, 2002 Meeting Minutes Page 7 maps and the next edition of the survey maps. Public input: Karen Joslin-Aured said she has a couple of comments. 1) She likes the idea of broader statements that Ms. Ore is asking for. 2) The whole reason for us meeting on this was not just for a set of products but to get ahead of the curve to take action and use it to save properties. We need to get research and surveys done to consistent standards. Protections will then kick in. 3) Regarding the Quonset type huts, they have had input, but the huts don't appear (from first hand accounts) to be tied to CSU or anything great. They are all different. They would like some way to say they are not eligible yet, but there is no way to do this in the current form. This is the case for the hay storage building at Ranch -Way and the Quonset type huts. 4) She hopes the data gaps will be filled in the future. OTHER BUSINESS: none. Meeting adjourned at 7:55 Minutes submitted by Carol Tunner