Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 08/14/2002LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting August 14, 2002 Minutes Council Liaison: Eric Hamrick (225-2343) Staff Liaison: Joe Frank (221-6376) Commission Chairperson: Per Hogestad (416-7285) Summary: The LPC found that the owners of 311 E. Plum Street have complied with the provisions of the demolition/alteration review process. The Commission approved the addition of the potting shed and the repainting of the front door to the property at 730 W. Olive Street. The LPC also discussed the appropriate role to take when applicants submit plans which may not be historically appropriate. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Meeting was called to order by Bud Frick in Mr. Hogestad's absence at 5:45 p.m., 281 N. College Ave. Commission members Angie Aguilera, Agnes Dix, W.J. "Bud" Frick, Per Hogestad, and Carole Stansfield were present. Commission members Janet Ore and Myrne Watrous had excused absences. Carol Tunner and Karen McWilliams represented staff. GUESTS: Gail and Doug Whitman, owners, for 311 E. Plum Street; Cheryl and Ralph Olson, owners, for 730 W. Olive Street. AGENDA REVIEW: Conceptual Review of handicapped access to Northern Hotel removed from agenda. STAFF REPORTS: Ms. Tunner handed out the new LPC Boards and Commission Manual, and passed around a memo from the City Manager and City Council members regarding the City Council's recent periodic recent review of the Boards and Commissions. Ms. McWilliams announced that a draft of the code changes will be brought before the LPC at the next meeting. COMMISSION MEMBER REPORTS: Ms Dix reported that she and Ms. Ore attended the recent adobe lecture and workshop. During the workshop, holes were bored through the interior adobe to ascertain its condition, and a piece of equipment was there which could allow them to look inside the holes. The workshop also included a history of adobe and of the Romero house. The adobe is in the best shape of anything relating to the structure, and for the most part is in good shape. Approval of June 26, and July 24, 2002 Minutes. June 2e Minutes required a change on page 3, paragraph 5; in the motion, change "1925 fire engine" to "1924 fire engine". In July 24th Minutes, on page 2, first paragraph, the last sentence should read "fully documented" instead of "full documented." Landmark Preservation Commission • • August 14, 2002 Meeting Minutes Page 2 Ms. Dix moved that the LPC approve the minutes as amended. Motion seconded by Ms. Aguilera, and approved unanimously, 4-0. At this time, Mr. Hogestad arrived and took over running the meeting. DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW PROCESS; 311 E. Plum Street (Gail and Doug Whitman, owners). Despite previous alterations, this house is eligible for local designation as a contributing structure to a district. The alterations of note occurred more than 50 years ago. The property is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, as a contributing element of the Laurel School district. The owners are proposing to remove and rebuild the existing second story, and will increase the size of their home by the addition of dormers. Ms. McWilliams reported that she had received one telephone call concerning this project, from Ann Manvel at 323 E. Plum. She is in support of the project. The applicants have complied with provisions #1 through #4 of Section 14-72 of the Fort Collins Code, pertaining to the Demolition/Alteration Review Process. A public hearing is required on this request for alterations to the home. The Commission's choices are that they can approve the application, postpone consideration for not more than 45 days if additional information is needed or if substantial neighborhood concerns are evident, or the LPC may consider landmark designation of the property. Ms. Dix asked if the windows on the front of the house are original. She was told that all but one of the first floor windows are original. The second story window is probably not original, but there is no documentation to show what existed previously. The existing dormer was added so that there would be enough height in the bathroom to put in a shower. The proposed changes include lifting off the roof to complete the work. When asked why the two proposed dormers are off -set, the owners replied that the two dormers cannot be located right across from each other without losing much of the available space inside. Motion: Ms. Aguilera moved that the LPC find that the applicant has complied with all the requirements of Section 14-72 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins and approves the application for the alterations to 311 E. Plum Street. Seconded by Ms. Stansfield and approved unanimously, 5-0. Landmark Preservation Commission • • August 14, 2002 Meeting Minutes Page 3 CURRENT REVIEW: 730 W. Olive Street, Winslow/Guard House — Addition of potting shed to garage and repainting of the front door of the house (Cheryl and Ralph Olson, owners). The applicants would like to add on a five-foot by ten -foot potting shed or flower room on the back of the garage, which is attached to the house. The shed would not be visible from any street around this house, which is located on the corner of Olive and Grant. The shed would face east. The applicants are planning to put in three steps that will go down into the little porch area of the potting shed. The diamond lite type windows that will be used have been salvaged from the original house. The addition will attach to the house, but will be compatible with the existing design. Most of the addition will be attached to the garage, which is not original to the house. The current roof of the garage will continue at the same slope. The applicants have found that the original trim color was dark green, and would like to paint the front door this same color (Kelly Moore color called "Allentown Green"). The back door will remain white, though the owners have not come to a firm decision on this. The applicants also found a picture of the house taken in 1948. The front porch at that time had no railings, and the applicants are undecided as to go back to the original design or keep the existing railings. Motion: Ms. Dix moved that the LPC endorse the addition of the potting shed and the repainting of the front door in color of Kelly Moore's "Allentown Green". The option is left up to the owners whether or not to remove the front porch railing, and the backdoor can be painted either white or green. Ms. Stansfield seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously, 4-0, (Mr. Hogestad had to leave during the discussion, did not hear the discussion, and abstained from voting.) Mr. Olson asked the LPC if they might be able to support him in seeking to obtain a State Historic Fund grant, which is not available to private residents unless they are supported by a historic group. They would like to redo the roof in wood shingles, which would be restoring the house to its original fabric, and this may qualify them for such a grant. Mr. Frick replied that they might be more interested in applying for the No - Interest Loan program. These funds, up to $5,000, are for historic properties and need be repaid only if the house is sold. Mr. Hogestad added that, by code, the LPC does not have purview to be the applicants in their application for a State Historic Fund Grant, and agreed with Mr. Frick that the No -Interest Loan Program may be more appropriate for them. DISCUSSION ITEM: How the LPC presents feedback to applicants — Group Discussion. It has come under discussion in past meetings that applicants get little direction from the LPC before starting with their plans. However, if the LPC doesn't agree that the planned changes fit with the historic nature of the buildings, applications have sometimes been denied. Ms. Tunner handed out the applicable portion of the Fort Landmark Preservation Commission • • August 14, 2002 Meeting Minutes Page 4 Collins Code, which implies that the applicant must have a Conceptual and a Final review, though both can be done at the same meeting. Sometimes it has not been clear if what is heard is a Final Review, and sometimes a Final Review seems to turn into a Conceptual Review. It was determined that Conceptual and Final Reviews can be held at the same time, and staff will encourage people to come for Conceptual Review only, to get feedback from the LPC. They can do this to get ideas or to get feedback from the LPC before going to the expense of getting plans drawn up. Some members of the LPC are concerned that the Commission tends to redesign plans rather than just telling the applicant that what they have proposed is inappropriate. It was suggested that the LPC ask the applicants for more alternatives rather than trying to come up with other design possibilities. In a recent case, a cabin had a proposed deck and railings. The LPC should have said that the proposed railing was inappropriate, rather than tell the applicant what would be appropriate. It was also suggested that more applicants do a Conceptual Review with the whole commission. li the item is Conceptual/Final, then the applicant must understand that the agenda item may not make it to Final if the design is not historically appropriate. Then they may be given direction about what to bring into the Final Review. Other business: Removed from agenda. Meeting adjourned at 6:52 p.m. Minutes submitted by Connie Merrill, Recorder.