Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 05/27/1998LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting May 27, 1998 Council Liaison: Scott Mason Staff Liaison: Joe Frank Commission Chairperson: Jennifer Carpenter (225-0960) SUMMARY OF MEETING: The LPC approved the replacement of a door with a window at #23 Old Town Square. The MittryNoung House at 1601 Sheely Dr., the Kickland House at 430 W. Mountain Ave., and the Vandewark House and Garage at 1109 W. Oak were recommended to City Council for designation as local landmarks. The LPC approved the application for the exterior rehabilitation and a boiler replacement for State Tax Credit, Part 1 of the Fred W. Stover House and Garage at 515 Remington. The LPC discussed the conceptual plans for the Preston Farm and the proposed development of the Rigden Farm. The LPC discussed plans for the garage at 231 S. Howes. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Ms. Carpenter called the meeting to order at 5:40 p.m. Commission members Per Hogestad, Bud Frick and Angela Milewski were present. Rande Pouppirt and James Tanner were absent. Stephen Short has resigned from the Commission, because he moved out of Fort Collins. Carol Tunner and Karen McWilliams represented Staff. GUESTS: Gino Campana, owner, Suite 152 at #23 Old Town Square; Veda and Per Hogestad, owners, 1601 Sheeley Drive; Carl Patton, owner, 515 Remington. AGENDA REVIEW: Ms. McWilliams requested the discussion of proposed plans for the carriage house at 231 South Howes. Ms. Carpenter requested the discussion of the Rigden Farm development plan at Timberline and Drake. STAFF REPORTS: Ms. Tunner reported that Clark Mapes, City Planner, has been helping the owners of Ranch -Way Feeds to choose a color scheme for their approved replacement building. He preferred the color Sahara Tan, with no contrast trim color. The LPC discussed that another proposed color was already approved. Any color change at this point may be considered administratively. The color would not affect the historic character of the building, but Mr. Hogestad did prefer the original color scheme. Ms. Tunner passed around one of the new educational brochures for the C & S freight depot, which were paid for by a State Historical Fund grant. Ms. Tunner acted as editor for the brochure. Ten thousand were printed, which should last five to six years. Ms. Tunner also announced that the National Association for Preservation Commissions has a conference planned in Denver from July 31 —August 2, 1998. Landmark Preservation Commission May 27, 1998 Meeting Minutes Page 2 COMMISSION MEMBERS' REPORTS: None. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: The April 22, 1998 LPC meeting minutes were accepted as submitted. CONSENT AGENDA: #23 Old Town Square, Suite 152 — Replace Door with Window (Gino Campana) Mr. Hogestad moved to accept the consent agenda. Mr. Frick seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. (4-0) LOCAL LANDMARK DESIGNATIONS: 1601 Sheely Drive, Mittry/Young House (Per and Veda Hogestad, owners) Mr. Hodgestad declared a conflict of interest. Ms. McWilliams presented the MittryYoung House for local landmark designation. It is an excellent example of Post World War II Contemporary architectural design. The house was built in 1954 in the Sheely Subdivision, the first of Fort Collins post-war affluent neighborhoods. The house displays stylistic influences of the International and Prairie Schools of design. Mr. Hogestad showed slides of homes in the neighborhood, built between 1954 and 1960. Ben Olds, the owner of Valley Block, built the neighbor's home in about 1954 and some of the earlier homes as well. Mr. Hogestad believes that Mr. Olds probably built his home too. The downstairs of the MittryNoung House is concrete block that has been covered with stucco. A fireplace is situated at the center of three wings, which make up the home. The center hearth and overall organization of the home was strongly influenced by Frank Lloyd Wright. Mr. Hogestad pointed out the study area addition, completed in 1958 or 1959. Ms. Carpenter said that the addition fit in well with the house. Other exterior features included adjustable louvers and extra glass walls. The double sliding glass doors off the living room are original and have the manufacturer's seal. Mr. Hogestad also pointed out the unique curved stairway with stone steps, and showed examples of the original hardware, which still exists in the house. Mr. Frick moved to recommend that Council locally designate the MittryNoung House at 1601 Sheely Drive. Ms. Milewski seconded the motion, which passed. (Yeas: Frick, Milewski, Carpenter) (Nays: none) (3-0) 430 West Mountain Avenue, Kickland House and Garage (Betsy Markey and Jim Kelly, owners) Ms. McWilliams said that the applicants could not attend, but have given consent. She explained that the home is an excellent example of the Craftsman style of architecture and is important for its historical association with William A. Kickland. The 2 1/2story house was the residence of Dr. Kickland, a well -respected physician and surgeon. He lived in Ft. Landmark Preservation Commission May 27, 1998 Meeting Minutes Page 3 Collins following his medical training and set up practice with Dr. Lee. Kickland later married Dr. Lee's daughter, Katherine. The couple originally lived at nearby 408 West Mountain Avenue, while they supervised the construction of this home at 430 West Mountain. Arthur M. Garbutt was the architect. The Kickland's owned the property for thirty-three years. Following William's death in 1933, Katherine remained in the house until her own death in 1941. Ernest and Mary Steele, owned the property through the mid- 1950s. Mr. Steele was a contractor and owner of E.G. Steele Lumber Company. The house is an excellent example of Craftsman style architecture in Ft. Collins. It is a side gable building with a Flemish bond brick first floor and a wood frame and shingle upper portion. It also features a full -width, brick walled front porch, with arched window and door openings and multi -pane transoms and sidelights. A curved bay window is on the west side, with a half -hipped roof. The wide eaves and verges, supported by a series of rafter brackets, are characteristic elements of the Craftsman style. A detached stone and brick garage contributes to the architectural character of the property. According to Sanborn maps, the garage was built circa 1917 and has the same character of the house. Mr. Hogestad moved to accept the proposal for local landmark designation of 430 West Mountain Avenue. Mr. Frick seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. (4-0) Ms. Tunner shared that Mr. Garbutt was one of Fort Collins premier architects and a protege of Montezuma Fuller, architect. He designed the old armory on East Mountain Avenue. 1109 West Oak Vandewark House and Garage (Sally Thorns, owner) Ms. McWilliams said that the house was important for its English Revival style of architecture and for its association with Floyd Vandewark, an important Fort Collins businessman. It's a modest interpretation of the English Revival architectural style and is interesting because it has shingle cladding over the entire building. It is one of only a handful of Fort Collins buildings clad fully in shingles. Mr. Vandewark had this unique home built for him circa 1920, soon after marrying his wife Fay. He was born to Fort Collins pioneers James F. and Grace Vandewark. James Vandewark established the Riverside Ice and Storage Company, now the location of the Poudre Valley Creamery. Floyd Vandewark followed in his father's footsteps, managing the company. The Vandewark house exhibits many characteristics of the English Revival style, which peaked in popularity in this country between 1910 and 1930. The overall mass of the house is defined by prominent, steeply pitched gable roofs, with minimal roof overhang. Prominent cross gables is a characteristic of the style, as is the off -centered projecting vestibule, which repeats the steep side -gable roof line. The narrow, multi -paned windows are grouped, leaving large expanses of open wall space. Shutters have been added to the upper windows. The garage dates from the period of significance and contributes to the Landmark Preservation Commission May 27, 1998 Meeting Minutes Page 4 architectural character of the property. The Vandewarks lived in the house until the early 1960s, when it was then sold to attorney and, later State Senator, James Beatty. Staff recommends approving this request for local landmark designation. Ms. McWilliams explained that the applicant was interested in making the second floor a more useable space. Ms. Thoms has talked about possibly adding dormers. Mr. Frick said that you would not be able to see skylights from the street, because of the large tree around the house. Ms. McWilliams said that the applicant was interested in meeting with the Commission to discuss the issue. Ms. Carpenter said that she would have reservations about changing the roof line. Mr. Hogestad said that while discussing a house on Loomis Street, the LPC had decided that trees covering the structure was not a criterion. The trees would not be there forever. Ms. McWilliams stated that the steeply pitched roof was a defining design characteristic of the style. Mr. Hogestad commented that it was a very steep roofline to work with. Ms. McWilliams said that she would communicate the LPC's comments to the applicant. Ms. Milewski moved to approve the request for local landmark designation of 1109 West Oak Street. Mr. Hogestad seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. (4-0) CURRENT DESIGN REVIEW: 515 Remington Street Fred W. Stover House and Garage — Re -Submittal (Originally submitted 12/9/97) of Overall Exterior Rehabilitation for Part 1 State Tax Credit and Mr. Frick stated that he served as the applicant's architect. He also corrected the proposed plans to read the correct address. Ms. Tunner said that Carl Patton, owner was applying for State Tax Credit and originally submitted his plans to the LPC on December 9. The application was tabled for more information on how the work was going to be done. He has since used the Design Assistance Program and has selected Mr. Frick to complete the drawings and plans for the work that needed to be done on the building. Ms. Tunner said that it was an extensive exterior rehabilitation of the building plus replacing the furnace on the inside. It included the roof, 2 back porches and the front porch, steps, and window screens. This application was grand -fathered into the State Tax Credit process to be reviewed locally. $2,500 was awarded through the Local Landmark Rehabilitation Grant Program to rebuild the three masonry chimneys. Mr. Patton said that his original application had six elements, and the first four had required more specific information. He said that the emphasis was now on repair rather than replace. The front porch flooring will be repaired. After discussion with the Design Review Sub -Committee, he will remove, consolidate and weather-strip the wooden windows on the NW rear porch. He said that the wood windows would fit better once weather-stripped. Mr. Frick said that it was still unclear as to how much structural work they would have to Landmark Preservation Commission May 27, 1998 Meeting Minutes Page 5 do on the porches. On the front porch, at the left corner there was a large stump of a tree that needs to be removed to facilitate fixing that corner, to make it structurally sound. Mr. Patton thought that was a good idea. Mr. Frick explained that the skirt board and decorative boards are dangling loose in a number of places. They will pull it up and try to figure out what is causing the problem and then reattach it. It was noted that the porch boards could be consolidated with the Dry Flex System. The worst boards were on the north and south sides of the front porch, which would be replaced if necessary. They are of good quality woods and have lasted this long. As far as the back, northwest, kitchen porch, Mr. Frick explained that an option was to eventually replace the aluminum storm windows. Currently, some are just panes of glass that are glued in place. If the applicant wanted to go to the full extent it would look a lot better and maybe it would be an option in the future. Mr. Hogestad asked if that was part of the proposal. Mr. Frick explained that his client does not want to do that at this time. He said that the work would take the porch back to how it originally looked. Mr. Patton said that for this application his total estimated cost was $15,000 and he does not think that he can go above that or he would enter a different category, according to the State Tax Credit Program. Mr. Frick suggested using that as an option, to be completed at the applicant's discretion. Ms. Tunner said that storm windows could be completed under a second State Tax Credit application. She explained to the Commission that the applicant's submittal material would be corrected and he would not get rid of the aluminum storm windows at this time, but may be an option in the future. Mr. Hogestad moved to approve the proposal for exterior rehabilitation, Part 1 for State Tax Credit, and the Local Landmark Rehabilitation Grant, and added the boiler replacement and an option of removing existing aluminum storm windows and adding wood storm windows at the discretion of the applicant. Ms. Milewski seconded the motion, which passed. (3-0) (Yeas: Carpenter, Hogestad, Milewski) (Nays:O) DISCUSSION ITEMS: Preston Farm, Conceptual Review — Jennifer Carpenter Ms. Carpenter showed the original PUD plan and Winter and Company's plan for the Preston Farm site. She explained that the preliminary PUD was okayed, but currently changes are being made. Winter and Company had developed options for the Preston Farm. Ms. McWilliams, Ms. Carpenter, Per Hogestad, and Ted Shepard had met with Stan Whittaker to review their latest proposal. Ms. Carpenter reminded the Commission that this was a conceptual review, and she did not know if these plans would be final. She would like to get comments back from the LPC before Liechtenstein Global Trust (LGT) comes up with their final plan. She pointed out a narrower viewshed than the plan by Winter and Company. Mr. Hogestad said that he was willing to move some parking around, but was a little concerned about the narrow view. Ms. Carpenter explained that Landmark Preservation Commission May 27, 1998 Meeting Minutes Page 6 there was a viewshed which looks to the northwest, towards Longs Peak, and Winter and Company's plan maintains that viewshed, while the latest LGT plan narrows that down. Depending, on the landscaping, you may possibly still be able to get that view across the parking lot. Mr. Hogestad said that narrowing the view diminishes the idea that this was once one continuous farm site. Mr. Frick and Ms. Milewski agreed. Other changes to the preliminary plan were discussed, including another parking lot and an alternative road to the access road from County Road 9. Mr. Hogestad pointed out the new parking lot out on the comer. Ms. Milewski commented that parking in the corner was better than the building, which was once planned for that space, but it is a substantial amount of parking. Mr. Hogestad said that part of LGT's mitigation plan was to berm an area adjacent to the parking in order to lessen its impact. He said that they would all much rather see open space there. Mr. Frick asked how the detention pond would work, now that the area was narrower. Would it appear that the buildings are up on islands? He said that it seems like the parties are almost in agreement, if they could widen the view corridor again to the granary and diminish the parking on the north east corner, because it seems like a large area for that amount of cars. Ms. Carpenter said that they have put the landscape island in the center of the parking to try to mitigate the impact some. Mr. Frick suggested that they use more greenery and widen the view corridor. Maybe they could use an access road behind the office building for additional parking. Ms. Tunner expressed concern that when the detention pond was full the buildings would not be flooded. Ms. Carpenter said that as the area gets smaller, the deeper the detention pond would have to be. Mr. Frick said that you don't want the buildings to look like they were floating, you want the grade somewhat gradual. Ms. Milewski said that was very important to tie the house together with the granary and not to have it appear to be a mistake sitting out there in the middle of a deep pond. She said that the grade needs to be as gentle as possible, nothing like the four to one slopes you would find normally. To make that visual tie between the two, opening it up is key to that connection. Mr. Frick added that the detention pond should not start from the edge of the building and slope down outside of the building. There should be a flatter surface at least ten to fifteen feet around each building for it to look like the building is not teetering on top. Ms. Milewski said that would also help to protect the foundations of the buildings. Ms. Carpenter said that Dave Lawser is trying to purchase the property and is certainly sympathetic to preserving it, but what the LPC needs to concentrate on is protecting it no matter who owns it. Ms. Tunner suggested that the only way to do that would be to designate all of the buildings, including the granary. The LPC had no comment. Mr. Hogestad said that they should take note that the proposed new buildings have changed quite a bit in their character, since the Winter and Company plans. He pointed out the lack of articulation of any of these and certainly the large size. Mr. Frick agreed that they would become large boxes. Ms. McWilliams said that some of the materials they would be using were brick, stone and wood. Her understanding was that they were trying Landmark Preservation Commission May 27, 1998 Meeting Minutes Page 7 to show a "maximum use" pad. Once they have identified the actual use, they could then define how they want their building to look. Mr. Frick asked if they wanted to put any architectural design criteria in the plans. Mr. Hogestad agreed that there was no compatibility whatsoever with these proposed buildings and the farm structures. Mr. Frick said that the Winter and Company plan had more detail, small roof structures that extended out, and these are large boxes. He added, if there is not some definite design characteristics built into the plan, sympathetic design will never happen. Ms. Milewski agreed that design criteria should be incorporated now. Ms. Carpenter and Mr. Frick discussed that these could be notes or use suggested elevations. Ms. Milewski said that the PUD plans illustrate a character sketch, which they can be held to. Ms. Carpenter asked if the LPC would like to see the suggested elevations brought to the new PUD. Mr. Frick said that the elevations were illustrated as two stories, have some sympathetic elements, but probably could use some work. Ms. Carpenter said that they might not fit. Mr. Hogestad said that the suggested design might be for a different use as well. He added that they should be moving in that direction with their elevations. Ms. Milewski explained the importance of the narrative, and that each tenant when they come in should be held to it, saying that the building should exhibit forms, materials and colors compatible to Preston Farm structures. She said that should be the overriding character of the new buildings, which is somewhat subjective. But, if you look at some of the descriptions, you can begin to expand on them and tie into the Preston Farm, which is the whole point and is part of the PUD process. Mr. Frick asked if Winter and Company had any concepts or elevations, and if it was possibly part of their study. Ms. Carpenter explained that the consultant articulated that they should be compatible. Mr. Frick said that they have sizes and figured out what shape building could contain what square footage. He suggested to have Winter and Company take another step and come up with character sketches, then they would have a set of design plans based on some real square footage to give to the developer and also have for the PUD. Mr. Frick added that Winter and Company's style of building seems to set up the character and scale. Ms. McWilliams presented illustratives that were submitted by Winter and Company to show how to get square footage along with compatible massing. Mr. Hogestad agreed that the massing was a key here. Ms. Carpenter agreed, and said especially if they are moving things closer, referring to the office building in the center. The Commission discussed the possible sizes of the buildings and agreed that regardless, the character of the buildings still need to be addressed. Ms. Milewski said that there should be an open connection maintained between the two sets of structures, the house and the granary. Winter and Company's plan was a great improvement and the open connection is really set up to be an important feature for this development. Ms. Carpenter agreed that they are getting there. Ms. Tunner thought that this was what the City was asking for now, the buildings placed on the outside and the parking concealed on the inside. Ms. Carpenter said that this project was grand -fathered in under the old LDGS. Ms. Carpenter said that she would like to see the LPC comments written up in a letter to LGT with their concerns. Mr. Hogestad asked if they could be in the form of minutes. Ms. Carpenter said that would work well. Ms. Milewski asked if LGT was planning on coming before the LPC. Ms. Carpenter said that they will be coming at the end Landmark Preservation Commission May 27, 1998 Meeting Minutes Page 8 of June and should have the comments as they are making revisions. OTHER BUSINESS: 231 South Howes, Garage, Complimentary Review Ms. McWilliams provided plans for the complimentary review of a garage/carriage house at 231 S. Howes. The owner, Steve Slezak would like to know if there is any way to incorporate the garage into a residence and wanted to know what the LPC thought of his plans. Ms. Carpenter requested a picture of what the garage currently looks like. Ms. McWilliams read a letter from Mr. Slezak, who explained that he originally wanted to demolish the structure, unless it could be integrated into the proposed residence. Ms. McWilliams reviewed the history of the garage. It was built circa 1906 and then remodeled between 1926 and 1929. The 1909 site plan illustrated two garages on the site. Mr. Slezak would like to designate the entire property. His work to the main house would create commercial space downstairs and a residence upstairs. He currently houses his business office there. He also intends to enhance the existing rose garden and use it as a center theme for the property. He said to move the garage would be to destroy the rose garden. Ms. Carpenter asked about the importance of the structure. Ms. McWilliams reviewed the survey form, which was completed by Jason Marmor on July 30, 1996. The original portion of the large two-story house was built prior to 1906, and sometime before 1909 a detached garage was constructed. Also during the same time, a rear two-story addition was built onto the house. The garage was remodeled in 1928 and re -shingled in 1947. Captain Humphrey and his wife Mabel had the house designed by Arthur Garbutt. It was built around 1903. Mr. Humphrey became the Director of the Fort Collins National Bank. Adelia Davis purchased the house in 1940 and owned it for fifty years. The house is not designated. Ms. McWilliams said that it is architecturally important, representing a type and period of construction and is individually eligible for the National Register. The area of significance is architecture, and the period of significance is 1903 to 1909. It is also associated with significant people, is contributing to a district and is eligible for local landmark designation. Ms. McWilliams said that Mr. Slezak is interested in designating the house and possibly the garage. The LPC discussed whether this was the original garage. Ms. Carpenter said that the City Plan calls for an increase in density and the use of carriage and alley houses. Mr. Hogestad commented on the proposed plans. He would rather see the structure as some auxiliary use, and have the development happen adjacent to it, rather than the main structure swallowing it. The LPC explored other design options, including a bump out bedroom with a deck on top of it or a structure coming off the garage. Mr. Hogestad said it would be helpful to see the site plan. The LPC agreed that the garage could not be designated with the proposed changes. Ms. Milewski said that it pushes development towards the house and affects its integrity. Mr. Frick said that the garage was far away Landmark Preservation Commission May 27, 1998 Meeting Minutes Page 9 from the house and was only associated with the house because it was painted the same color. He understood why he might want to preserve the space and would not want to build where the garden exists. Mr. Hogestad felt gardens come and go or could be moved, depending on the orientation of the design and would like to see a study for the development of the site. Ms. McWilliams said that there are not many garages of this style in Fort Collins. Ms. Carpenter suggested that the Design Review Sub -Committee could visit the site and explore some possibilities. Ms. Milewski questioned whether you could triple the square footage of a structure and still maintain its historical integrity. Mr. Hogestad suggested using a connector piece from the garage to an addition. The LPC was willing to explore options for the garage but could not support the option presented. The Commission recognized that City Plan called for an increase in density of residences, but would like to see a proposal which is more compatible to the structure. Mr. Frick would like to see the garden preserved. Ms. Tunner added that Adelia Davis was the assistant manager at the pharmacy at Walgreen's on College Avenue and was the first women pharmacist in Ft. Collins. This information may need to be included in the property file. The Rigden Farm Site Ms. McWilliams said that there are significant structures on the properties, eligible for local landmark and National Register designation. Ms. Carpenter said that Bill Neal at Wheeler Real Estate would develop the farm. She spoke with Mr. Neal and informed him of the significant historic buildings. He said that he was sensitive to that and was more than willing to talk about it. Ms. Carpenter thought it was important to become involved at the beginning of the process. Ms. Tunner said that the farms were surveyed in the Agricultural Survey. Ms. Tunner added that this property contains the only Bank Barn that still exists in the UGA. The GROUT House Ms. McWilliams reported that the Environmental Learning Center wanted to apply for a State grant to enable CSU to preserve the Grout House. She encouraged Commission members to voice their support to CSU President, Albert Yates. Ms. Tunner said that the property was surveyed in 1992 and was the oldest house existing anywhere in the urban growth area. Ms. Carpenter said that the CSU Historic Building Resources Board did meet to discuss the house. Ms. Carpenter missed that meeting, but will be meeting with Mary Humstone from the National Trust to discuss it. Discussion of Conflicts of Interest Mr. Frick said that for the record, the legal department stated that members of the LPC who are architects and have a project coming before the Commission, could not even be in the meeting room when that project was being discussed. There are three architects on the Commission and this evening they all had projects coming through. Theoretically, they should not have been in the room, yet it was allowed in order to get a quorum, discuss the Landmark Preservation Commission May 27, 1998 Meeting Minutes Page 10 projects and then vote on them. He felt that you should be able to present your project and then abstain from voting. You still should be able to represent the owner and explain the project details. Ms. Carpenter agreed and Ms. McWilliams will bring this issue to Paul Eckman, City Attorney. The meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m. Submitted by Nicole Sneider, Secretary.