Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 02/23/2000LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting February 23, 2000 Minutes Council Liaison: Scott Mason (226 - 4824) Staff Liaison: Joe Frank (221-6376) Commission Chairperson: Per Hogestad (303-292-1875) SUMMARY OF MEETING: The LPC approved the proposed addition for 237 West Street, reviewed preliminary conceptual plans for the old National Guard Armory, at 300 East Mountain, and reviewed plans for rear additions and new construction at 208 and 214 Peterson. Timothy Wilder, City Planner, presented the 2000 Local Landmark Rehabilitation grant applications. Some grant applicants addressed the Commission and the LPC discussed the proposed rehabilitation projects. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Mr. Hogestad called the meeting to order at 5:08 p.m., at 281 North College Avenue. Commission members Angela Milewski, Angie Aguilera, Agnes Dix, Janet Ore, and Rande Pouppirt were present. Bud Frick was absent. Joe Frank, Carol Tunner, Karen McWilliams and Timothy Wilder represented staff. GUESTS: John Lischert, owner, 237 West Street; Paul Jenson, President, the Jenson Group Inc., Glenn Konen, The Architect's Studio, and Jay Hardy, Director, Downtown Business Authority, for 314 E. Mountain Avenue; Mark Teets, Realtor, The Group Inc. and Don Smith, Contractor, Rocky Mountain Construction Management, Heather White, Nancy Kinney and Marina Blake for 208 - 214 Peterson; Steve Slezak, owner, 231 S. Howes; Joe and Carolyn Knape, owners, 641 Remington Street; Jeff Benjamin, owner, 824 Remington; Dave Alciatore, owner, 616 Meldrum; Mary Humstone, Karen Joslin, Joe and Julianne Fletcher, Dick and Patty Lawser, Jennifer Carpenter for the Preston Farm; Dave Rowan, owner, 227 Wood Street; Don Beard, President of Board of Directors of the Fort Collins Contemporary Museum of Art for the Historic Post Office; Jordan Radin, owner, 140 N. McKinley Avenue; and Mike Asmus owner, 226 Pine St. CURRENT REVIEW: -- TWW�L UW=t- rnnai Hoprovai or Aaamon (Karen McWilliams) Ms. McWilliams said that the current plan included an elevation of where the addition will be attached to the house and wall sections, as per the request of the LPC. Ms. McWilliams reported that the applicant went before the Zoning Board of Appeals and received a variance for the shape of the addition. Ms. Ore also attended the meeting and addressed the board in favor of the addition. Ms. Milewski moved to approve the submitted drawings for 237 West Street. Ms. Ore seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. (6-0) Landmark Preservation Commissio February 23, 2000 Meeting Minutes Page 2 DISCUSSION ITEMS: 314 East Mountain Avenue, National Guard Armory/Paramont Dry Cleaners — Complimentary Review (Jensen Group Inc.) Ms. Tunner reported that the applicants would like a complimentary conceptual review of their plans to rehabilitate the old National Armory. She explained that the building is not designated as a Local Landmark. Mr. Jensen yvould like to use the building as a new home for his design group. The Armory, built in 1907, has been used very little for the past fifty years and has never been fully restored. He explained their intent for the structure and how they would like it to fit in with downtown Ft. Collins. He explained the layout of the mezzanine structure on the interior. They would like to preserve the interior of the building and create office space inside. They plan to extend the mezzanine out by twelve feet to provide space for bathrooms and additional office space. In addition, they would like to create a catwalk from the mezzanine out to the roof of a new first floor free-standing conference space. They will re -use the flooring from the office space in the mezzanine, which will be carpeted, on the new extended conference space. Mr. Konen added that they would like to save the eighteen inch wood railing. Mr. Jenson explained their plans for the front fagade. They would like to strip the brick and re -point the parapet. The LPC discussed the use and entrances for the building, as well as historic documentation that may be available. Mr. Konen added that at the rear of the Armory, there is a small building. The brick is in very bad shape, so they prefer to re -stucco the structure. Mr. Hogestad asked if they planned to alter any of the windows. Mr. Konen explained that a window in the rear would be cut down from the sill to create a rear exit to a catwalk and new courtyard. They would remove the ramped rear entrance. They plan to add skylights to the roof and re-create the windows on the front fagade to match the existing if they can find the right brick. Mr. Hogestad said that he liked the restoration of the front fagade to the original. The Commission discussed the use of the building and its rear ramp access to horses. They further discussed options to create an entrance for the handicapped. Mr. Hardy said that office space was a good use for the building. The plans will be presented to the Downtown Development Authority next week and he will explain the opinion of the LPC of the rehabilitation work. 208 — 214 Peterson (Karen McWilliams) Ms. McWilliams explained that the properties are located within the Laurel School National Historic District and the structures are designated as contributing elements to the district. Originally, the applicant's intent was to tear down the structures. Now, the plan is to add on to the original structures and build two additional single-family homes at the rear of the lots. Ms. McWilliams reported that the homes were built in the 1880s and are small vernacular dwellings, typical of that time frame. According to a recent survey conducted by Jason Marmor, the structures are in good condition and are good examples of the original architecture. 208 Peterson had a small addition that was removed, and has non -original aluminum frame windows and non -original siding. 214 Peterson has an original rear milkhouse addition, which was a common feature of the time, but rarely exist today. There is an outbuilding at 208 Peterson, which is wood / Landmark Preservation Commissie • February 23, 2000 Meeting Minutes Page 3 frame and dates back to the period of significant. It is contributing, but the applicant plans to demolish the building for new construction. Mr. Frank explained that this project is going through the review process under the Land Use Code. Under section 3.4.7(E) the LPC should review the project and give their advice to staff. Ms. McWilliams discussed the criteria for reviewing the project, which addresses the preservation of historic sites, adaptive re -use, and compatibility. Mr. Frank suggested that they look at the entire site plan, at the re -use, and the new construction. Mr. Smith described the work planned for 208. The addition is twenty by twenty-eight feet and will have a new roof hip and will match the wide exposure siding on the house. He asked the LPC for help with the window design. Staff recommended that they perform minor exploration to check for ornamental details in the original siding. The addition will be 960 ft2 and the outside entrance would be on the south side. Mr. Smith then described the proposed addition on 214 Peterson. He explained that it was difficult to attach the new addition to the old house, because of the L-shape and the slopes of the roof. The original house would have five feet added onto the front end to meet the dimensions of the addition. A window also will add to the small front addition. They plan to convert the milk house into a wine cellar. Ms. McWilliams explained that the shape of this house is a very important feature. Ms. Ore commented that it should not look like the house had been built with the addition five feet at the front. Mr. Hogestad agreed that it would change the shape and that the roof configuration was challenging. The Commission discussed other design options, including setting back the addition from the original house and reconsidering the roof configuration. In addition, they discussed that adding onto to the front elevation changes the shape of the fapade, a crucial historic feature. Mr. Teets explained that the house was only 500 ft2, which creates a marketing and livability problem today. Mr. Smith explained that another option is to create a pop-up roof. He said that he is willing to work some more on the plans. Mr. Smith reviewed the plans for new construction on the lots. The house would be garden level with a second story above. The eaves will reach twelve feet and the front elevation will be brick and siding. Staff suggested softening the elements on the fagade and used photographs of the house at 217 Whedbee as examples of recommended design features. Mr. Hogestad approved of the proposed double hung windows. Ms. Ore asked about the proposed arched windows. Mr. Smith said that he is willing to change those design features. Ms. Ore discussed the mass and shape of the proposed new structures in relation to the neighborhood. Mr. Pouppirt agreed that the details of the new house should be simplified and was concerned that a retaining wall at the garden level would be obtrusive. Mr. Smith said that they plan to install landscaping to hide the retaining wall. Mr. Hogestad and Ms. Milewski discussed the existing grade of the old houses and their concerns regarding making the new house three to four feet higher than the old ones. Mr. Frank suggested that the applicant work with staff on some of these ideas and concerns. Mr. Hogestad suggested that they break up the massing of the new construction. Mr. Smith said that the neighbors would like to see the yard kept open, which prevents them from building long narrow structures. Landmark Preservation Commissio. February 23, 2000 Meeting Minutes Page 4 Mr. Hogestad asked if there was any public input. Marina Blake, citizen, explained that she had concerns that most homes in the area have a lot of open land around them and would like to preserve the sense of open space that exists on the east side. She said that the houses would be too close together and too close to the property line. They are not in character with the neighborhood. Steve Slezak, citizen, said that there is a challenge to protect and preserve neighborhood while keeping with the goal and objective of condensing and compacting development to encourage walking and alternative forms of transportation and the development and sustainability of the downtown area. He said that the applicant seems amiable to the design and aesthetic issues and encouraged him to go forward with the LPC guidelines. Ms. Blake commented that the proposed new house would look like a new house from the south end of Ft. Collins that was moved to this property. Nancy Kinney, citizen, said that her property backs up to the open space of the two lots and she would prefer not to see any buildings. She said that open space is a big part of the character of the neighborhood and added that she preferred the design of the houses at Whedbee. LOCAL REHABILITATION GRANT PROGRAM REVIEW (Timothy Wilder, City Planner): Mr. Wilder reviewed the intent of the program and the schedule for the year 2000. He explained that the LPC members will contribute their scores for criteria 1 and 2. Applicants will have a chance to address the Commission. He also provided additional photographs for the application for the Old Post Office. At the next meeting, he will present the preliminary rankings and how much can be awarded total. There were 19 applications: 6 non-residential and 13 residential. A total of $55,290 in grants, $165,494 of matching funds, and $220,784 in projects total was requested. Mr. Wilder showed slides of each of the properties and reported on the proposed work items, and amount requested. After the presentation, Mr. Hogestad asked if the applicants had any comments. Joe Knape, 641 Remington Street, explained that the proposed work is to repair and replace stucco. He explained that even the chicken wire in the lathe was rotten. He intends to maintain the structural integrity and historic significance of the property. He wants to prevent more structure damage and said that the property is under a moderate to severe threat. They have done more work in the interior. He said that the moisture might have gotten into the cracks of the stucco before they owned it. The lower six feet of the south side is very wet and the stucco is peeling away. They won't know how much damage there is until they explore under the stucco. He explained the structure is a craftsman style bungalow with coarse stucco, which he intends to repair. Mr. Hogestad asked what was under the stucco on the columns. The owners said that they believe wood is under the columns and that the side of the house is brick. They found a company that can match the stucco and the like the look and feel of the house. Jeff Benjamin, 824 Remington, explained that the garage is five years older than the house and was originally a dwelling. The chimney is evidence of that. He would like to restore the foundation, which is sagging, and install missing doors by re-creating the ones that are there. A masonry contractor explained that the work to restore the Landmark Preservation Commission • February 23, 2000 Meeting Minutes Page 5 chimney would involve tearing down the chimney and then rebuilding it with the same brick. Both it and the structure needs to be made plum to improve their structure integrity. Ms. Tunner added that the applicant intended to cut the rafter tails because they have rotted, rather than to replace the rafters. They would have to be taken back 8 to 12 inches, to the sound wood. Then, gutters could be attached to a firm anchor point. Dave Alciatore, 616 Meldrum, provided an old photo and photographs of needed repairs. Little has changed on the house over the years. He explained the drainage and foundation problems. He explained that a wall has bowed out in the basement and the mortar in the foundation crumbles to the touch. He plans to repair the foundation and then replace the paving of the walk on the side of the house, which is not in the grant application. He showed a picture of a crack along the header stone above one of the windows. He explained that in the last ten years the bowing and the crack have shown up. He added that the structure was originally a fraternity house. Mary Humstone, Historic Fort Collins Development Corporation, for the Preston Farm Project, explained how the old granary really used to stand out on the horizon and the view is now disappearing. She reported that the impact of construction on the site including the loss of siding and other materials. They have done some work to preserve it and they need to stabilize it immediately. Eventually, they will continue with the exterior rehabilitation with a Colorado Historical Society grant. They don't want to put off their work on the granary. Karen Joslin, Historic Fort Collins Development Corporation, further explained that they installed plywood over the openings on the south side. They also have removed the shutter and original hardware, which is being stored on the inside. She added that more work still needed to be done. Mr. Frank added that Mr. Wasser provided the matching funds for the State Historical Society grant. Dave Rowe, 220 Wood Street, explained the work he proposed for the porch. The house was built in 1904 and is still identical to its original condition. The original exterior doors and interior hardware still exist. He reported that the porch was sagging badly and is buried in approximately a foot of soil. He proposed to jack it up, stabilize it, and put it back on the house. He also intends to replace new glass panes with vintage glass panes. He added that he would also replace the old spindle porch railing and re - point the brick on a sagging coal shoot on the northeast comer. Don Baird, Board of Directors of the Contemporary Art Museum, explained that they would like to complete the final phase of repairs to the Old Post Office building. They received a Colorado State Historical Society grant and in mid to late March they would like to get started washing and stabilizing projects and the lead abatement. Jennifer Carpenter, real estate agent, 729 Remington Street, explained that the seller, Mr. Kay, would like to complete the work and the new owner is interested in restoring the structure. A fallen tree took out the porch and the gutter is not working. A drainage problem is already causing foundation problems. The owner had no Landmark Preservation Commissio February 23, 2000 Meeting Minutes Page 6 insurance to cover the repairs. The new owner would like to renovate the house into offices and it is located in a NCB zone. Ms. Tunner asked if repairs could be done on the garage doors. Ms. Carpenter said that they were in pretty bad shape. Mr. Hogestad asked if she had received assurance from the new owner that he would complete the repairs. Ms. Carpenter explained that he was very interested in completing the work. Steve Slezak, 231 South Howes, explained that since August they have started on the full-blown restoration and has spent $60,000. He is now asking for assistance with the stucco repair, soffit bracket replacement, and an alteration to the rear porch for a handicap entrance. He asked for comments on the paint color and explained that they are using a thick paint to fill in where the stucco is cracking. They also will repair holes from electric meter entrances and will then put the utilities underground. He discussed three additional brackets that were missing and custom made molding. He explained that the porch was not well built and has no support. He would like to rebuild the porch and upper deck. The door will have to be moved a few feet to allow for a handicap ramp. It's a door on the north side of the house and it can not be seen from the front. Jordan Radin, 140 North McKinley Avenue, explained that they would like to install new storm windows. Six to seven of the windows have no glass storm windows. Condensation builds on the inside and is causing the wood to rot. Then, they plan to restore the interior wood windows. They also plan to paint he house and place the rooted front door. Mr. Hogestad asked the Commission members if anyone had any strong opinions. Mr. Wilder explained that the LPC members would rate each project for criteria 2, which address the threat to the building, and criteria 1, which looks in general at the kind of work that is being done. Mr. Hogestad reminded the Commission that some of the work might be considered truly a restoration, while other projects are more maintenance. The LPC discussed the individual projects. 324 E. Oak proposed to replace a wood roof in kind, which is a much greater expense. Ms. Milewski explained that the grant money could prevent the needed roof from being downgraded to non -historic material. The barn at 515 Meldrum is under a great threat because there are so few barns left. The LPC discussed whether the membrane roof, at 226 Pine Street, is more of a maintenance issue. The LPC agreed that they needed more information as to the threat to 128 N. Sherwood. Mr. Hogestad said that there was a strong threat to 729 Remington Street because the structure is rotting away. Landmark Preservation Commiso • February 23, 2000 Meeting Minutes Page 7 The Commission discussed that the porch repair of 227 Wood Street is very visual. The project is a real restoration because the applicant is bringing it back to the original porch. This is also a good project for the neighborhood and the house is truly unaltered. The Commission discussed the past work on 231 South Howes, which is proceeding along well. Mr. Wilder reported that part of last years grant money was turned in. The Commission discussed the use of paint to temporarily patch cracks and the use of an alteration to a door of the building as a project for a funding match. The project at 1315 Remington Street was not a big threat, but brick is falling down. The Commission discussed cutting down the vines on the archway. They also identified the archway as a crucial feature of the architecture. 202 Remington Street was a phased project, which included work that is critical to the building. Last year's grant money for the Old Post Office was rescinded, but the applicants came back with the proposed work. The LPC agreed that the Preston Farm project was under a great threat. The LPC discussed the work that needed to be done to the sidewalk on the site in order to make the necessary repairs, at 626 S. Meldrum. The agreed that the threat to this building was high because it's located so close to the college campus. The LPC questioned whether the storm windows and paint proposed for 641 Remington Street is maintenance and if there is a strong threat. It was noted that 1608 Sheely Drive would have a shake roof. Ms. McWilliams added that the roof is flat and taking in water in several places. The LPC was concerned about the proposed cut to the rafters and chimney reconstruction at 824 Remington Street garage. They discussed whether it was good restoration practice. They agreed that the foundation work would be good and wanted to encourage the applicant to save the garage. The LPC reviewed the proposed lower and upper porch work for 730 West Olive. Mr. Wilder added that if the applicant received partial funding, the lower porch would be completed. AGENDA REVIEW: None. STAFF REPORTS: Ms. McWilliams received a letter, dated January 10, 2000, from the Poudre Landmarks Foundation. The letter was about the storage of lumber at the waterworks facility. The letter expressed that they are opposed to the reconstruction of Landmark Preservation Commissic February 23, 2000 Meeting Minutes Page 8 the old garage on the site. Staff will attend their next meeting to discuss options for the re -use of the old water staves. COMMISSION MEMBERS' REPORTS: None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The January 26, 2000 minutes were accepted as submitted. OTHER BUSINESS: None. The meeting adjourned 9:20 p.m. Submitted by Nicole Kaplan, Secretary.