Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 07/22/1998LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMM Regular Meeting July 22, 1998 Council Liaison: Scott Mason Staff Liaison: Joe Frank Commission Vice -Chairperson: Per Hogestad CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Mr. Hogestad called the meeting to order at 5:42 p.m., at 281 North College Avenue. Commission members Angie Aguilera, George Lyons, Angela Milewski, Janet Ore, Rande Pouppirt and James Tanner were present. Joe Frank and Karen McWilliams represented Staff. GUESTS: Pam Inberg, owner, 425 East Laurel Street; Theresa Morford, property owner, 256 Linden Street; Eldon Ward, Cityscape and Stan Whitaker, Western Property Advisors, the Preston Farm Project; Bud Frick, citizen; Jennifer Carpenter, citizen; Rick Reider, 226 Laurel Street, property owner. AGENDA REVIEW: Ms. McWilliams added under other business, the complimentary review of a proposed addition on 226 Laurel Street. Rick Reider, owner, requested the LPC's support for a variance in order to build the addition. STAFF REPORTS: The new LPC members were introduced, Angie Aguilera, George Lyons and Janet Ore. COMMISSION MEMBERS' REPORTS: Ms. McWilliams explained that the LPC needed new liaisons to the Downtown Development Authority and Historic Fort Collins Development Corporation. Mr. Frank explained that the volunteers would not be voting members, just liaisons. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Hogestad said that regarding the May 27, 1998 LPC meeting minutes, he had declared a conflict of interest before the Commission discussed the proposed designation of 1601 Sheely. Mr. Tanner moved to accept the minutes as amended. Mr. Pouppirt seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. (7-0) The June 17, 1998 LPC meeting minutes were accepted as submitted. Local Landmark Designation: 425 East Laurel Street The J M Glick House Steve and Pam Inberg, owners Ms. McWilliams presented the J.M. Glick House at 425 East Laurel for Local Landmark Designation. She explained it was contributing to the Laurel School National Register District. There have been no exterior alterations of any consequence and it is in very good Landmark Preservation Commission July 22, 1998 Meeting Minutes Page 2 condition with very good historic integrity. Ms. Inberg stated that it has been gutted on the inside and they are currently working on it. They plan to renovate the house. Ms. Ore asked if it would be an owner occupied residence. Ms. Inberg said that they are planning on moving in, in two weeks. The Commission discussed other Queen Anne style homes in Fort Collins. Ms Milewski asked if the garage would be designated; it would not. Ms. Ore moved to designate 425 East Laurel, the J.M. Glick House as a local Landmark. Ms. Milewski seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. (7-0) Ms. Inberg said that her neighbor might be interested in designating their home, which does have some connection to 425 East Laurel. Ms. McWilliams said she would research the house. Demolition Review: Final approval of request for demolition of a portion of the "Basement House". 1033 West Vine, Claudia Schimert. owner. Ms. McWilliams explained that the applicant was not able to attend. She explained that the applicant needed to build onto the basement house in order to be eligible for homeowner's insurance and a mortgage. Because of this hardship, the LPC did issue a waiver, but still requested a Historic Resource of Merit Form, and structure report. Both have been submitted and handed out to the Commission. Ms. Schimert is now seeking final approval of Chapter 14, Section 72(b) of the City Code and has met all of the requirements. Mr. Pouppirt discussed the comparison of 1033 West Vine to other such basement houses, which did not necessarily exist in the immediate area. Ms. Ore asked if the applicant would build a normal house on top. Ms. McWilliams explained that the applicant planned to build a standard one-story home. Ms. Milewski moved to grant final approval for demolition of a portion of the building at 1033 West Vine. Mr. Pouppirt seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. (7-0) CURRENT DESIGN REVIEW: 256 Linden Street. "Drums." Request to install a condensing unit at the rear of the building. Theresa Morford, owner. Ms. McWilliams explained that Ms. Morford, the property owner, would like to install a Lennox condensing unit at the rear of the building in an existing enclosure. A spec sheet of the proposed unit was included in the packet, as well as plans for the installation. There would be no break in the actual building to install the new unit. Ms. McWilliams explained that the building was a non-contributing structure to the Old Town Fort Collins Historic District. Ms. Morford described the submitted plans to the Commission. She said that the new unit would be installed beside an existing unit in the fenced section. Copper lines would run through the boarded up windows to the interior. Landmark Preservation Commission July 22, 1998 Meeting Minutes Page 3 Mr. Tanner moved to approve the installation of a condensing unit at the rear of 256 Linden Street as proposed. Ms. Milewski seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. (7-0) DISCUSSION ITEMS: Mr. Whitaker came to the LPC seeking support, in the form of a motion or letter, for the Preston Farm project site plan, which they would be presenting to the City Planning and Zoning Commission for final approval. Mr. Frank explained the context of the Preston Farm plan for the benefit of new LPC members. He said that the property was identified as the last remaining intact farm in the UGA and was determined individually eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places and for designation as a Local Landmark. During the Planned Unit Development process, the LPC has provided input dealing with the historic preservation issues. The Commission in acting only in an advisory role and can send their comments to Planning and Zoning. Ms. McWilliams then reviewed the ten structures on the property which were determined significant to the farmstead. The granary is the only one like it, on the Front Range. Preston Farm was identified on the Colorado Preservation Inc. list of most endangered properties. The site also has a significant association with Ben Preston, an early farmer and settler who was very important to the development of water resources and agricultural industries and businesses. Ms. Ore asked just how much of the farm was being lost. Ms. McWilliams explained that the more recent buildings, or ones which were in very poor repair, would be demolished. Mr. Whitaker said that in their original plan, the historic area has been contained to a 1.25- acre site that would involve moving the granary and some other structures. He explained that now their main goal was to try to preserve the structures in their current locations. He worked through the key points of the current plan as review. Mr. Ward reviewed the idea of taking the required storm drainage area and creating a link between the farmstead structures. Most recent changes to the plan included pulling the parking back futher, a vehicular area with center parking, and a sidewalk system that, reaches the fronts of the buildings by going through the farmstead itself. Mr. Ward presented cross -sections, showing how the drainage related to the granary and how the parking berms impacted the viewshed from Harmony to the farmstead. Mr. Whitaker added that the drainage area would be like a pond only when it rained, other times it would be a grassy area. Mr. Ward described the landscape material as turn of the century Fort Collins, including lilacs. Ms. Ore asked him to address the visual continuity between the old and new structures. Mr. Ward reviewed some architectural elements, which were used on the farm structures and may be continued in the new ones. These included pitched roofs, lap siding, and stone elements, which were used on the original portion of the farmhouse, wood shingles, and tin roofs. They have also examined more compatible architectural Landmark Preservation Commission July 22, 1998 Meeting Minutes Page 4 forms. They have tried to clearly define the corner as the farmstead, but the other larger buildings would still be compatible. Mr. Hogestad requested them to come up with a dialog for the plan addressing the various elements and how they would look, such as mass and form. Mr. Frank said that the approved preliminary plans had notes regarding architectural elements, compatibility, similar proportions, pitched roofs, girded windows and other architectural accents. Mr. Whitaker reminded the Commission of the note on the plan regarding the northwest comer building (Building "O") and if it were built smaller than approved, construction would begin from the south in order to pull it back away from the comer and the farmstead. The site plan has also been manipulated so that the eastbound access lane has a direct view to the rear of the farmstead. Mr. Frank asked about the alternative access route on the plans. Mr. Whitaker stated that Mr. Lawser, the prospective owner of the farmhouse, may want to keep an access point to the building. He added that the Transportation Department wants to push the access further south. Mr. Whitaker explained that they wanted to keep traffic further from the farmstead and they have received strong support from the historic preservation people. At this point, Mr. Ward addressed the note regarding commercial traffic, which preserves the existing driveway to the house, on Lot 4. If the City takes the earlier approved access road away, then they would need to seek approval for the alternative access point as shown in the dashed lines. The Commission talked about how traffic would move from Harmony to County Road 9. Mr. Hogestad talked about the berming reference to the cross-section drawing and asked if it would allow a pedestrian to look into the farm. Mr. Ward said that the berm was proposed to be approximately four feet higher than the sidewalk and an average -height person's view line would be over the berm. Ms. Milewski said that based on the contour lines, to the east there is a 4:1 slope, which is fairly steep. She asked if there were any other alternatives. Mr. Whitaker explained that one alternative would be if they moved the turkey house, they could change the depth of the drainage. Mr. Ward said that by retaining the turkey house at it's current location, a peninsula shape is created, as well as substantial gradation changes. They could flatten out the area, but they tried to stay true to the existing locations of the buildings. Mr. Whitaker added that they needed to also protect the foundationof the granary. Public input came from Mr. Frick, citizen, who said he found the idea of moving the turkey house intriguing. He asked what type of vegetation would be planted on the slopes of the drainage area. Mr. Ward said that they were open to suggestion, but were considering Buffalo Grass. Mr. Frick said that if they planted taller vegetation like Crested Wheatgrass, the slope may not be as visible. He also suggested that they plant bigger shrubs along the parking lot to hide or soften it. Ms. Ore asked if you would be able to walk from the granary to the farmhouse. Along the grassy area you may feel like walking across a hole and a formal path would take away from the continuity through the farmstead. Mr. Ward was considering a stepping stone arrangement to make walking easier. He said that they Landmark Preservation Commission July 22, 1998 Meeting Minutes Page 5 could move the turkey house or try to extend the grading in another area. Mr. Frick voiced his concerns regarding the alternative access route. He said that the plans only mention Lot 4 and asked whether it would provide a connection to the rest of the development as well. He also said that he does recognize that Mr. Lawser needs access to his property. Mr. Ward said that they would pursue it for use by vehicular traffic. Mr. Frick said that pedestrian traffic would be okay. Ms. Carpenter, citizen would like to see them explore an alternative to the current drainage plan, like bringing the drainage up into the farm area. Mr. Ward said they would need to go back and re -engineer the pond. They could flatten the area substantially, but the turkey house would have to be moved into the farmstead area. Mr. Hogestad suggested more drainage off the parking to the northeast. Mr. Ward explained that they had looked into that alternative and it works because the shrubs would obscure the steeper slope, but it makes a pretty miniscule difference. Mr. Frick said that if they moved the turkey house, the view towards the granary becomes less severe. Mr. Ward agreed that it spread the slope further. Mr. Hogestad stated that the depth was not the issue, but rather the severity of the slope. He discussed the effect moving the turkey house would have on the continuity of the buildings. Mr. Tanner opposed moving the turkey house. Mr. Hogestad was concerned about pedestrian traffic. Ms. Carpenter said that Mr. Lawser would probably use the outbuildings and would need pedestrian access to them. The steep slope concerned her as well. She liked the idea of pushing the drainage towards the parking lot. Ms. Milewski said that a 4:1 slope was just about as steep as someone would want to walk on. Mr. Whitaker said that they may be able to manipulate the earth to make a side slope within the drainage area. Mr. Hogestad thought that they could make a real natural feel and look to it. Mr. Whitaker said that they would explore other options and that they don't want to create a v-shaped drainage. Mr. Ward said they could spread out the contours to make an easier slope to walk along. Ms. Carpenter asked how detailed the landscape plans were. She had discussed with Clark Mapes, City Planner, a windbreak farmstead style landscape and showed the applicants some sketches. Mr. Mapes had suggested creating another windbreak area running west to east along the viewshed. Mr. Ward was concerned it would block the view to Long's Peak and may create a maintenance problem along the parking lot. Ms. Carpenter also discussed using large evergreens to help frame the area from the adjacent large condominium project. Mr. Lyons asked about a theme for the Wildwood development, and whether it would be carried throughout. Mr. Whitaker discussed some of the design elements that they used both on the Harmony School and Shamrock, but they haven't discovered a common architectural feature at Preston Farm yet. Mr. Ward said that they could use the granary as a logo or graphic for the signage. Mr. Frank said that they could work with the City on some interpretive projects along the public rights -of -way. Ms. Milewski thought it was a good idea to embrace the historic fabric of the farmstead and not to have it thrown aside. Landmark Preservation Commission July 22, 1998 Meeting Minutes Page 6 Mr. Whitaker explained that they are committed to restoring the farm and balance the current drainage and access needs with the preservation needs. Mr. Tanner said that accessibility to the house also depends on what the new owners want. Mr. Ward added that the new owners would do more extensive landscaping, but Western Property Advisors is responsible for the earth moving and re -seeding. Mr. Frank reviewed some of the major points that the LPC would address for Planning and Zoning. Mr. Ward also stated that it would be nice to see some recognition of everything Mr. Whitaker has done for preserving the farm and the positive steps they have taken to get here today. A major priority was to eliminate the potential access road to Lot 4 off County Road 9. The LPC strongly supported the right -in access and discussed the trade off. Another idea was to relocate the turkey house. Western Property Advisors should reduce the slope of the detention pond as mush as possible. Ms. Milewski added, addressing the character of the buildings in the subdivision to relate to the farmstead, as per the original plans, and per Winter and Company's plans. Mr. Frank also added that the building closest to the farmhouse (Building "O"), start construction away from County Road 9, if the tenant makes it smaller. The landscape plans should also reflect an old farmstead. Mr. Hogestad suggested the addition of interpretive signs. Mr. Frank said that they would need to protect the buildings when the earthmovers are working. Mr. Whitaker explained that the grading work would be done before the plans go to Planning and Zoning. Ms. Milewski said that she would not like them to move the turkey house. Mr. Hogestad said that they should lessen the slopes and as it would be an interpretive site, then people should have access. Ms. Ore said that they should keep the connection between the turkey house and the granary, which helps maintain the visual continuity of the farm. Ms. Aguilera added that a sidewalk could create a visual separation, but if the drainage encroached the sidewalk to create lesser slopes that would be okay. Mr. Whitaker stated that he strongly supported the right -in access to the farm. The LPC listed their priorities as first, eliminating the alternative access; second reduce the slope; third, compatible architectural elements; fourth, building the smaller commercial building away from the farmhouse; fifth, creating farmstead landscape architecture; sixth, to protect the structures while the site is developed. Mr. Tanner commented that the longer the list, the more problematic the plans appear. Ms. Ore suggested that some points be combined like landscaping and design elements. Mr. Tanner would like to see the letter demonstrate the LPC's appreciation for the work, which has gone into these plans. Mr. Tanner moved that the Commission voice its strong support of the general concept and plans for Preston Farm and commend the developers for their effort made to preserve the historic fabric of the farm; endorse the right turn -in as crucial and to be kept in its current location; to urge the developer to decrease the degree of the slope in the drainage detention to make foot traffic more desirable; and address other concerns as conveyed tonight. Ms. Milewski seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. (7-0) Landmark Preservation Commission July 22, 1998 Meeting Minutes Page 7 OTHER BUSINESS: Yynl...... luol� ILcylcw VI f1YYILI VII rIOIIJ LLV tt C3L LdUI CI 1'fIGlC iielaPir Mr. Hogestad declared a conflict of interest and excused himself from the discussion. Ms. McWilliams explained that this property is not currently designated, but the applicant was interested in designation for the barn and possibly the house. The structure is a rental duplex and is in a neighborhood that is predominately student rentals. Mr. Reider wanted to preserve the fagade of the house, but the rear unit needs some work. It has a box addition, which was not part of the original house and has some foundation problems. Ms. McWilliams explained that Mr. Reider was requesting a letter of support from the Commission to the Zoning Board of Appeals support in order for the project to meet the set back requirements and encroachment of the right-of-way. Mr. Reider said that he had considered going up or out with the new rear addition, and felt that out was more sensitive to the historic house. Such a design would encroach on the rear set back. But, by going up, he would be destroying the historic character of the house and the Laurel Street view. He explained that the barn sits at the back of the house and is also in pretty bad shape. He proposes to keep the barn, stabilize it and move it to a new location on the lot. The barn, in it's current location, would be in the way of parking. At its new location, it could be used for storage for bikes. Mr. Reider was interested in creating a nice safe place for students. Currently, the area has a lot of debris, trees and old fences. Mr. Reider explained that he owns the property to the north, which the set back of the proposed addition would be encroaching on. He requested a letter of support to receive a variance on the set back. He added that he could not promise that they would keep the barn, but it does fit into their plan. He would also like to install a driveway, and along side it, a walking path. Therefore, he also needs a variance to build a five-foot landscaping border on one side of the driveway. Ultimately, he would like to keep the home unique and distinct. He said that these variances were necessary to maintain the character and design of the historic house and the street. Finally, Mr. Reider was thinking about designating the house and wanted to know if it would still be eligible with the addition on the rear. The Commission was in support of preserving and moving the barn and keeping each house on the different lots unique. Ms. Aguilera commented that the plans already make the rear look like one large area. Mr. Reider explained that he would like to create a common area for picnics and bikes between the houses. This would be a great improvement compared to typical student rental unit yards on the street. Ms. Milewski said that the Commission really doesn't have anything to do with a lot of these issues. She added that they could address whether to build back or up and how to best preserve the fagade of the building. Mr. Tanner said that they could say that they would rather see the barn preserved than demolished. He would also prefer to see an addition that was more compatible to the house in mass and scale. Mr. Frank said that these issues do address neighborhood preservation, which does improve the streetscape, and what's good for Landmark Preservation Commission July 22, 1998 Meeting Minutes Page 8 neighborhood preservation is generally good for historic preservation. Mr. Reider requested a letter to support an eight foot encroachment on the rear setback, and a five foot variance for landscaping in order to maintain a separation between the two units, and that states that the LPC would prefer to see the addition go back rather than up. Mr. Tanner commented that if the variance allowed the addition to go back, then they support it. The meeting adjourned 8:50 p.m. Submitted by Nicole Sneider, Secretary