Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 07/26/2000E V LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting July 26, 2000 Minutes Council Liaison: Scott Mason (226-4824) Staff Liaison: Joe Frank (221-6376) Commission Chairperson: Per Hogestad (416-7285) SUMMARY OF MEETING: The Commission approved use of Benjamin Moore color #1026 paint for the foundation at 201 S. College Ave., Old Post Office. The Commission gave conceptual review and provided suggestions on rehabilitation of the Preston Farm Granary, 4605 S. County Rd. 9. Timothy Wilder presented information on the proposed conversion of the Landmark Rehabilitation Grant Program to a Loan Program, with discussion by Commission members following. The Commission approved adoption of the 1995 Secretary of the Interior's Treatments for Historic Properties to serve as design review criteria. Dan Corson, CLG Coordinator for the Colorado Historical Society talked to the Commission about the Certified Local Government Program. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Per Hogestad called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m., at 281 North College Avenue. Commission members Agnes Dix, Per Hogestad, Angela Milewski, and Janet Ore were present. Rande Pouppirt arrived at 5:39, and W.J. (Bud) Frick arrived at 5:44. Angie Aguilera had an excused absence. Carol Tunner, Karen McWilliams, and Timothy Wilder represented staff. GUESTS: Dick Hill, AIA, for the Fort Collins Museum of Contemporary Art, at 201 S. College Ave., Old Post Office, and 4605 S. County Rd. 9, Preston Farm Granary. Dan Corson, CLG Coordinator for the Colorado Historical Society. Robin Stitzel, preservation intern. AGENDA REVIEW: None. STAFF REPORTS: Ms. Tunner: 1) Attended a State Historical Society funding workshop and provided copies of Colorado Preservation 2000 which she distributed; 2) announced that the National Trust for Historic Preservation Conference will be held Oct. 31-Nov. 5th. Ms. McWilliams introduced Robin Stitzel, intern in the historic preservation office. Ms Tunner introduced Dan Corson, the Colorado Historical Society Certified Local Government Coordinator. COMMISSION MEMBERS' REPORTS: None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes for the June 28, 2000 meeting were accepted as submitted. Landmark Preservation Commission July 26, 2000 Meeting Minutes Page 2 CURRENT REVIEW: 1.) 201 S. College Ave., Old Post Office, re -paint Foundation (Dick Hill, AIA, for the Fort Collins Museum of Contemporary Art). Ms. Tunner summarized her written report describing the applicant's request to use Benjamin Moore color #1026, (not from an historic palette), to paint the foundation of the Old Post Office. Staff recommends approval of the color for the foundation. Mr. Hill explained that the foundation had been exposed in the late 1970s when the building was remodeled for offices; he shared suggested paint samples, and proposed use of color #1026 to paint the foundation as it would ground the building and pick up the warmth of the granite. Mr. Frick moved to approve use of Benjamin Moore color #1026, the lighter of the two browns presented, for use on the cement foundation on 201 S. College, Old Post Office. Ms. Dix seconded the motion, which passed unanimously (6-0). 2.) 4605 S. County Rd. 9, Preston Farm Granary. (Dick Hill, AIA, for the Fort Collins Museum of Contemporary Art). Ms. Tunner summarized her written report describing the proposed rehabilitation to the Preston Farm Granary, and showed slides of the property. Staff recommends rehabilitation of the barn as presented, with some questions about materials, and process. Mr. Hill described the granary, largely painted with white trim, one of the sliding doors missing, and it has a metal corrugated roof, which leaks in some areas; some boards are missing, and some areas are unpainted. He distributed an addendum to his earlier documentation, which included information determined in the interim, and remaining questions, considerations, and unknowns about materials to be used. He would like to conduct more research on the paint; e.g. regarding original color, extent and type of paint, as well as on conditions and possible replacement materials. There is evidence of a gray -green olive drab paint popular after World War II. Ms. Tunner asked if his goal was restoration or preservation; Mr. Hill stated that the local landmark grant was for rehabilitation, but that the current work is estimated to be more costly than the original grant amount ($5,000 grant, $5,000 matching). Mr. Hogestad asked if he had researched other materials, for example, for the roof; he had. Mr. Frick mentioned that old corrugated metal roofing might be available. Mr. Hill noted that little could be done until the building is straightened and stabilized. Mr. Pouppirt asked if the addendum was what is now proposed; it is. Based on the guidelines that as much of the original fabric should remain as possible, Mr. Hill proposed in his addenda to: 1) investigate further whether studs and sills were rough sawn or machine planed; 2) repair only the necessary portions of the studs and sills; 3) replace corrugated roofing and flashing as needed (5 out of 100 2' x 8' sheets), investigating appropriate replica materials; 4) replace missing door panels, and overhaul all doors once the building has been leveled and straightened; 5) delay until a later date selection of paint color; and 6) withdraw request of use of wood preservative on unpainted wood. Mr. Hill noted that Landmark Preservation Commission July 26, 2000 Meeting Minutes Page 3 there was considerable dry rot, and it must be cut beyond where the rot is present. Mr. Pouppirt was concerned about using cripples on the bad studs. He would prefer new studs. Mr. Frick asked how much of the grant had been designated for straightening; none, the original grant was for painting, wood replacement, etc. Mr. Pouppirt noted that many questions remained. Ms. Milewski added that the Commission would need to see samples of replacement materials before work could be approved. Regarding use of cripples or replacement boards for the 2x6s, Ms. Ore noted that the criteria require that as much of the historic fabric be preserved as possible. Mr. Hill will secure the building opening. As this is a conceptual review, no motion was required; Mr. Hill will investigate materials and processes and return to the Commission with additional information for the final review. Mr. Hogestad said that the framing, roof, and structural repair proposed were on the right track. DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1.) Landmark Rehabilitation Grant Program Conversion to a Loan Program (Timothy Wilder) Mr. Wilder summarized his memorandum describing the proposed conversion of the Landmark Rehabilitation Grant Program to a revolving loan program. Since city funding for the program is not likely to increase, the conversion would provide a means to re- build funds and recapture investment; also rehabilitation costs are rising and it is anticipated that there will be an increase in demand for funds. The name would be changed to the Landmark Rehabilitation Assistance Program. The proposal is for revolving interest -free loans, with loans secured by a second deed of trust due on sale of the property; single loans per building are proposed; and repaid loans would go back into the program. The review process would be similar to the current one for grants, with a similar time frame; it may be possible to increase loan amounts in the future. He proposed monitoring the new program after it gets underway. Issues: would this loan program serve as an incentive; it could be a long time before the funds are returned to the program; should this go from a once -yearly to a first -come -first -served basis; should the program continue as a 50% match. If the Commission agrees, Mr. Wilder would like to have the Commission hold a hearing on this proposal for August 23rd; then his office would draft an ordinance for City Council. Commission members discussed the proposal. Mr. Pouppirt asked if first -come -first - served would indicated administrative approval; review process would still be necessary. Ms. Milewski stated that the DDA has an ongoing process for their funding that works well. Mr. Wilder noted that for now the same review process would be maintained. Mr. Frick pointed out that a commercial project may have many loans, and asked if the city could work with this. Ms. Milewski noted that some commercial grant recipients return for additional grants. Ms. Tunner asked about potential problems that might be caused by certain categories of building owners, St. Joseph's School, for example, where the building would never be sold; a similar case would exist with other city or non-profit owned buildings. Mr. Wilder acknowledged that it might not be possible Landmark Preservation Commission July 26, 2000 Meeting Minutes Page 4 to recapture all loans. Mr. Frick asked if, perhaps, part of a loan were repaid, could another loan be received? Ms. McWilliams wondered if there could only be one active loan at a time or if multiple loans might be possible; she noted that those to whom she had mentioned the change from grants to loans had reacted positively, but that the cap of only one loan would be limiting. Mr. Frick added that multiple loans might cause problems for the city. There was consensus that it would be beneficial to have funds returned to the city. Mr. Wilder summarized: there is interest in offering multiple loans; there is interest in incentives, e.g. to recapture funds early; the competitive basis of the existing process is appealing. Mr. Hogestad noted a positive reaction from the Commission with the exception of the points outlined. Mr. Wilder will make revisions so that the issue could be brought before the Commission on August 23`d. His office will notify owners of designated properties, and others about the hearing. 2.) Adoption of the 1990 Rehabilitation Standards and/or the 1995 Secretary of Interior's Treatments for Historic Properties as Design Review Criteria. Ms. Tunner presented a history of the development of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, distributing a written summary of the chronological development of each as well as a brief description of the guidelines. Ms. Tunner recommended that the Commission adopt the most recent version, written in 1992, and published as CRF 36- 68 in 1995. Mr. Corson noted that the latest has simplified language and it was preferable to refer to the most recent documentation; if passed, Fort Collins would be the first CLG in the state to adopt these current treatments. Mr. Corson asked if the LPC would hold a public hearing regarding adoption of the new guidelines. Ms. Tunner explained that this LPC meeting is a public hearing, each project does not have to be labeled, and it doesn't change how the LPC reviews projects. Mr. Frick moved that the Commission adopt the 1995 Standards (CFR 36-68) (for use on properties outside the Old Town District.) Ms. Ore seconded the motion, which passed unanimously (6-0). OTHER BUSINESS: CLG Presentation (Dan Corson). Mr. Corson, Local Government liaison with the State Historical Society, said that his was a official visit to the Fort Collins CLG site; currently evaluative visits are made to each site every three years, although they may move to four years. He took a tour of the community and received background information on local issues. He works with local governments who wish to enact historic preservation ordinances, and provides training and technical advice to those who have them. In Sept. 1998 the position was created and he has served since that time. He noted that Colorado leads the nation in total preservation funding, since a percentage of the gaming funds support historic preservation. Colorado has a large number of communities with Certified Local Government status, 74 communities have a preservation ordinance, most are cities, but 12 are counties (e.g., Boulder and Park). The number of CLGs grows by approximately three per year. Their web site has more information: www.cooin.oro. Mr. Corson noted • Landmark Preservation Commission July 26, 2000 Meeting Minutes Page 5 that the planning button would be of particular interest; the site includes the CLG Handbook, and publication lists. Mr. Corson also distributed various copies of publications. As part of the background on CLG, Mr. Corson began with overview historic preservation in the U.S. and Colorado, and a background to resources becoming available for preservation, including the development of State Historic Preservation offices. The Colorado Historical Society manages a grant pool, with 10% of funding set aside for local grants; they oversee the National Register process; provide training workshops and technical advice. One commission member in every local CLG must attend a workshop per year; he encouraged Commission members to attend meetings of other commissions as an educational process, but should contact him first. Mr. Corson receives minutes of all Commission meetings, and an annual report from each group. There will be a workshop in Georgetown (September 23, 10-2) on the Secretary of Interior's Standards regarding State Tax Credit Projects, with focus on issues of concern to the CI -Gs. His office is hoping to get another staff member or consultant to work with CI -Gs on design review training. In the future they plan to have a disk/CD- ROM workshop (Powerpoint) on national state and local standards for sale at cost, and now have a video on how to conduct public hearings ($3.00). Mr. Corson asked that any suggestions for issues to be included in the upcoming workshop be e-mailed to him, as the agenda is still open. The meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Submitted by Holley Lange, Secretary.