Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 05/10/2000LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting May 10, 2000 Council Liaison: Scott Mason (226-4824) Staff Liaison: Joe Frank (221-6376) Commission Chairperson: Per Hogestad (303-292-1875) SUMMARY OF MEETING: The Commission gave conceptual and final approval to restore the house at 227 Wood St., including repair of the front porch, front door, coal chute, window repair with installation of vintage panes, paint removal from sills if possible, and painting in an historic color palette. The Commission gave conceptual and final approval to restore the house at 128 N. Sherwood, including porch repair as described but with decking to be perpendicular to the house, door repair, step replacement in wood, and aluminum storm window removal; decisions on window repair or replacement will follow submission of additional information on window condition. The Commission gave conceptual and final approval to restore the garage at 824 Remington as described in the proposal. The Commission conducted a complimentary review of additions to 208 and 214 Peterson. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Mr. Hogestad called the meeting to order at 5:33 p.m., at 281 North College Avenue. Commission members Per Hogestad, (Chair), Angela Aguilera, Agnes Dix, Janet Ore, and Rande Pouppirt were present. Angela Milewski (Vice -Chair), and W.J. (Bud) Frick were absent. Joe Frank was present. Carol Tunner and Karen McWilliams represented staff. GUESTS: David Rowan for 227 Wood St.; Chuck Lloyd, contractor and Jan Krucky, homeowner, for 128 N. Sherwood; Jeff Benjamin, owner of 824 Remington St.; Don Smith and Marc Teets for 208-214 Peterson St., and neighbor, Nancy Kinney, owner of 418 E. Oak. AGENDA REVIEW: None. STAFF REPORTS: Ms. Tunner introduced Holley Lange, secretary. Ms. Tunner reported for Ms. Milewski, that at the last DDA meeting a report indicated plans for a 5-story mixed use Tedman Hotel style -building to be constructed on the Sears Trostel Lumberyard site. She reminded Commission members that comments on the Colorado Historical Society 2000 Plan are needed by 26 May; she will mail copies to Commission members and provide them background information. COMMISSION MEMBERS' REPORTS: None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The March 8, 2000 LPC meeting minutes were accepted as submitted. Landmark Preservation Commission May 10, 2000 Meeting Minutes Page 2 CURRENT DESIGN REVIEW: 1. 227 Wood St., Hardin House. Conceptual/Final to Restore Porch/House. Using Landmark Rehabilitation Grant (David Rowan) The applicant received a year 2000 Landmark Rehabilitation grant. Following a presentation of slides by Ms. Tunner illustrating the areas of proposed work, Mr. Rowan presented plans for his work. 1) The front porch, front door and coal chute will be restored. As much original material will be retained as possible, using a 1904 photograph as guide to the work; the porch will be jacked up, deteriorated posts replaced; new steps installed and railings replaced per the 1904 photograph, and flooring repaired/replaced where appropriate; the coal chute will be supported and repaired. 2) Windows will be scraped and hand sanded, with the lower sashes removed and glass replaced with vintage panes; 3) Stone sills will be tested to see if they are strippable, if so paint will be removed. 4) Painting will follow an historic color palette. Repointing will be carried out as needed in several locations. Ms. Ore noted that the sills could be painted if they could not be stripped. Ms. Tunner asked if skirting was original; it is. Mr. Hogestad inquired if the porch floor would be milled to the original. Mr. Rowan said that it will be tongue and grove as in the original. The house is owner occupied. Ms. Ore moved that the Commission give conceptual and final approval to restore the house at 227 Wood St. as proposed. Ms. Dix seconded the motion, which passed unanimously (5-0). 2. 128 N. Sherwood, Burnett/Killgore House. Porch and Door Rehabilitation/Replacement of Window Sashes (Jan Krucky, homeowner and Chuck Lloyd, contractor). Following a presentation of slides by Ms. Tunner illustrating the house and areas of proposed work, Mr. Lloyd and Mr. Krucky presented plans for the work. 1) The porch will be jacked up over 4-6 weeks to level the floor, and the railing and remainder of the porch raised as needed in the process; the current decking end grain attracts moisture and the floor is rotten, so they proposed a replacement of the decking parallel to the house. 2) Sandstone steps are proposed to replace the current non -original wood steps; sandstone will blend with the foundation and front walk. 3) The small side window proposed for removal is not original, but was added when the house was partitioned. 4) Windows, other than those recently replaced, are in poor condition, some do not seal, and are unmatched with a variety of woodwork and window styles. Additions to the house were inconsistent so the effort will be to normalize this with new Marvin Tilt Pac windows. Ms. Tunner expressed concern about the decking and suggested it would be best to leave the style as in the current porch, perpendicular to the wall sashes. Mr. Lloyd said this could be done. Landmark Preservation Commission May 10, 2000 Meeting Minutes Page 3 The Commission questioned the replacement of the window sashes. Mr. Hogestad asked if the windows could be restored; Mr. Lloyd noted they had no grant for such work. Ms. Ore determined that eight original windows were proposed for replacement. Mr. Lloyd noted that the newer already -replaced windows are Marvin, and the proposed windows would be Marvin Tilt Pac. Tilt-Pac windows do not impact outside trim; exterior trim would stay intact. Ms. Ore expressed concern about removing original wood window sashes and replacing them with aluminum; Mr. Lloyd noted they could use wood windows. Mr. Hogestad expressed concern about the style of the proposed replacement windows; Mr. Lloyd noted that the new meeting rails would be slightly thicker than the old, but other dimensions are quite close. Mr. Lloyd proposed that aluminum clad be used for the replacement windows, but they could have an option for restoration glass. Ms. Ore suggested that a house of this vintage would have dark window sashes; Mr. Krucky indicated that no evidence of original colors had been found. Ms. Ore asked if restoration of the current windows had been considered; Mr. Lloyd noted that this would be quite expensive, and he and Mr. Krucky stressed again the poor condition of the windows. After further discussion, Mr. Hogestad expressed concern about removing a portion of the original fabric of the house; Ms. Ore noted that the proposed new windows might not be the ideal solution. In view of these concerns, Mr. Hogestad suggested that Mr. Krucky and Mr. Lloyd look again at restoring the windows, and investigate the cost of same; they agreed to do so. Ms. Aguilera noted that while she encouraged further investigation of the windows, she felt the original proposal for the windows was not out of line with others they had received. Mr. Benjamin of (824 Remington) shared his experience in restoring the windows on his house, where he used a combination Marvin wood screen and storm window. Mr. Pouppirt expressed concern about use of sandstone steps, asking if it would not be out of place with the wood frame house. Mr. Lloyd noted that the steps were not protected by the roof, so stone was the preferred building material. Ms. Aguilera moved that the Commission give conceptual and final approval for the proposed porch reconstruction but with decking replaced in the original configuration, perpendicular to the house; for repair of two exterior doors; for new wood steps; and with the provision that Mr. Lloyd and Mr. Krucky investigate window reconstruction and return to the Commission with that information. There was no second so the motion failed. Ms. Ore moved that the Commission give conceptual and final approval for the proposed work at 128 N. Sherwood referring to their proposal: 1) the porch repair as detailed with the exception that the floor will be replaced in the original configuration; 2) steps will be replaced with wood rather than sandstone as proposed; 4) exterior door repair as detailed; and 5) removal of one window as detailed. Mr. Pouppirt seconded the motion, which passed unanimously (5-0). 3. 824 Remington St., William E. Greffenius House and Garage. Conceptual/Final to Restore Garage Using Landmark Rehabilitation Grant (Jeff Benjamin) Landmark Preservation Commission May 10, 2000 Meeting Minutes Page 4 Following a presentation of slides by Ms. Tunner illustrating the house and areas of proposed work, Mr. Benjamin presented plans for his work. The garage will be repaired bringing the structure back into level; rotting wood will be replaced; the chimney will be rebuilt and wing -fold garage doors be replaced. Ms Ore asked for additional details of the work: the building is leaning and sags, and will be jacked up and brought into plumb and square, then the repaired footing will be set in concrete; the chimney will be disassembled and rebuilt. Mr. Pouppirt asked if the chimney was original; Mr. Benjamin believes it was not, but rather added in the early years. Mr. Pouppirt asked the age of the house; the house dates to 1930, while the garage appears to date at least to 1925. Mr. Pouppirt moved that the Commission give conceptual and final approval for the proposed rehabilitation of the garage at 824 Remington St. as submitted. Ms. Ore seconded the motion, which passed unanimously (5-0). DISCUSSION ITEMS: 208-214 Peterson Street Complimentary Review of Plans for Additions to Houses in the Laurel School National Register District (Don Smith and Marc Teets). Ms. McWilliams noted that Mr. Smith and Mr. Teets requested the complimentary review of 208 and 214 Peterson. Plans are to construct additions to the structures; later they hope to add two new units at the back of the lots. If there are no major issues, the notification process will begin. Mr. Smith described the plans, noting that in the future they will move to re -plat the lots to allow for the proposed additional buildings. There was some discussion as to whether this later proposal would come before the Commission; Mr. Hogestad indicated that it would be preferred. Mr. Smith first discussed plans for 208 Peterson. A 20 x 28 addition to the rear of the current structure is planned; roof lines will tie in, materials will match, window size and styles will match. Mr. Smith expressed a preference for all vinyl or aluminum clad. The Commission prefers all wood. He described the extensive and costly work needed in the basement, including digging it out, gunning out walls, taking out wood posts, and finishing the dirt floor. Mr. Teets noted that a number of other neighborhood houses have used vinyl windows; the old windows are in poor repair, and are only single pane. Mr. Hogestad asked if the addition could be offset to the side to get a reveal of 6-12 inches; Mr. Smith said it would be possible. Mr. Pouppirt suggested a trim board be placed at back on the addition; Mr. Smith agreed it would be possible. Mr. Smith then discussed plans for 214 Peterson. Previously, the Commission requested a two -foot set back and it is included in the current plans. He described the proposed addition. The stone milk house will be retained; the new door will match the front door; siding and roof will match the original. There is no basement, but they will need to investigate existing flooring. Landmark Preservation Commission• May 10, 2000 Meeting Minutes Page 5 Ms. McWilliams asked if they intending to match siding on 208 Peterson to historic. Mr. Smith noted they had no proof as to what was original, but if they find such evidence through exploratory demolition, then they will match it. Ms. Ore asked if consideration should be given to the historic standing of the building. Mr. Smith noted that for him the structural integrity is of prime importance. Mr. Hogestad asked if the addition was appropriate, and would the building still be contributing. Mr. Hogestad again expressed concern about vinyl windows; Mr. Smith noted that at other times he understood they had been allowed. Mr. Pouppirt noted the positive effort Mr. Smith and Mr. Teet are making in attempting to create livable dwellings from these small houses. Further discussion on the windows ensued. Mr. Smith stated he is just trying to get the house in good condition; Ms. Ore noted that the Commission was mandated to keep the historic integrity of buildings. Mr. Smith felt that these houses should be considered marginal, and that they were trying to preserve the old structures. Ms. Kinney (homeowner, 411 E. Oak) asked about the basement of 208; there will be a basement under new portion and the basement will be finished under the original house. She also asked about the milk room; it will be a mechanical room. She approves of the plans for 208. She noted that her front windows are metal clad wood, while others are vinyl, but the frame is inside the old window. Mr. Smith will be requesting a building permit this week and the Commission will go forward with neighborhood notification. Mr. Teet verified that they could move forward with their work. He also noted the possible implication of the proposed Homeowners Tax Credit for builders and developers in historic areas, and asked the Commission consider the potential for being inundated by remodeling requests should the law pass, and suggested that the Commission might consider ways to improve and streamline the process. OTHER BUSINESS: Mr. Pouppirt expressed concern about the Commission's focus on windows and inquired if there should be clear guidelines for them; Mr. Hogestad indicated such guidelines already exist. Mr. Pouppirt noted that Tilt Pac windows were considered appropriate in other applications, and asked if the Commission should disregard economics, that people arrive unsure and suggested members should examine the group's purpose. Mr. Pouppirt reported that some members of the Friends of the Waterworks on N. Overland Trail, where the pipe stave garage has been stored, were concerned. Ms. McWilliams noted that it may have a use in the future, perhaps covering the cinder block restrooms at the site. It is on city property. Landmark Preservation Commission May 10, 2000 Meeting Minutes Page 6 Mr. Pouppirt stated that buildings can often be demolished and replaced with new buildings. Does the Commission have an opportunity for input in these cases? He also noted that Mr. Smith and Mr. Teets might not decide to keep dwellings should a similar opportunity appear in the future. Mr. Hogestad noted that if houses are eligible then the Commission must follow the code. There was agreement that the proposed plan to restore the houses was a good one. Mr. Pouppirt discussed alley houses in Boulder, and the limits on size and type building. Ms. Kinney noted her concern about alley houses, and expressed her desire to maintain the character of the old downtown area. Mr. Hogestad reported he would now be working in Fort Collins for the Neenan Company. The meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m. Submitted by Holley Lange, Secretary.