Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 04/24/2002L, LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Special Meeting April 24, 2002 Minutes Council Liaison: Eric Hamrick (225-2343) Staff Liaison: Joe Frank (221-6376) Commission Chairperson: Per Hogestad (416-7285) CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Per Hogestad called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. Per Hogestad, Agnes Dix, W.J. "Bud" Frick, Janet Ore, Carole Stansfield and Myrne Watrous were present. Ms. Tunner, Mr. Frank and Ms. McWilliams represented staff. Ms. Aguilera was absent (excused). GUESTS: Greg and Bink Owsley, owners, Chuck Robinson and Steve Josephs and Don and Margaret Webber for 404 S. Washington Street; Deborah Secor for 610 Cherry Street; Jim and Karen Boyd, owners, Evan Metropoulos, builder, and Keira Harkin, designer, for 525 Smith Street. Steve Levinger for 900 S. College Avenue; David Haimson, owner, 629 W. Mountain; Yee and Tom Campbell for 730 W. Mountain Avenue. AGENDA REVIEW: No changes STAFF REPORTS: Ms. Tunner had the following announcements: 1) She brought to the LPC members' attention that the Old Ft. Collins High School addition, site plan advisory review will hold a work session to evaluate the character, location, and extent of the work plan, on Friday May 10, at noon. There will be no opportunity for public comment at this meeting. On May 31, at noon, there will be another P&Z work session, but still no public input will be allowed. On June 6, there will be the regular meeting of Planning/Zoning board. Public input will be welcomed there. 2) Ada ms/La rime r/Weld/Morgan counties are having a historic preservation meeting. There will bean item on "How do you build support for local residential historical districts." 3) Information on the LPC website was sent around. 4) Boards and Commissions training was attended by Agnes Dix. 5) A publication by the Colorado Historical Society was handed out: "The economic benefits of historic preservation in Colorado." Ms. McWilliams thanked the LPC members who are participating in the LPC preservation issues meetings. Landmark Preservation Commisso April 24, 2002 Meeting Minutes Page 2 COMMISSION MEMBERS' REPORTS: Mr. Hogestad told the commission members that Ms. McWilliams had conducted a meeting with people in the 300-500 blocks of W. Mountain Ave. to discuss their interest in Local Landmark district designation. Mr. Frick reported on the DDA meeting. Chip Steiner will be the Interim Director for the DDA. There was a discussion on planned Old Town Square improvements; Asmus Sign received a State Colorado Historic Fund grant for property analysis (historic Assessment Grant). The Armstrong Hotel owners are thinking of selling the building. Also, there was a discussion on the development of the Oak Street Plaza, which is currently under-utilized. Regarding the Steele's Market redevelopment, the DDA is anticipating a funding request from the developers (DDA grant). They anticipate that construction funds will be requested before the end of the year. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: No Changes. CONSENT AGENDA: DEMOLITION/ALTERATION: 404 S. Washington Street: The house is eligible for designation as a Fort Collins Landmark, for its architectural significance to Fort Collins. The owners are proposing to increase the size of their home by the addition of a second floor. The applicants have complied with the provisions of the Fort Collins Code, pertaining to the Demolition/Alteration Review Process. Staff recommends that the Commission approve the application for the alterations to 404 South Washington Street, without conditions, and that the Commission find that the applicant has complied with the requirements of Section 14-72 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. Only one phone call from the public has been received. When the commenter was provided the plans for the alterations to the property, he did not respond either positively or negatively. Ms. Stansfield asked why the Commission is allowing people to pop up the tops of their houses? Mr. Hogestad replied that there is no mechanism to prevent it. The code says that the LPC could say that this house is so significant that we could proceed with a non-consensual designation, and then the issue would come before City Council. The house is not a landmark. Mr. Owsley said that for the design, they chose a house plan from a Sears Roebuck mail order catalog from the 1920s. The owners want to stay in old town, but with their teenagers, it is just not feasible to have only one bathroom. Landmark Preservation Commisslop April 24, 2002 Meeting Minutes Page 3 Ms. Ore responded that even though they've picked something from the Sears catalogue from the 1920s, it's not anything like what would have been built. It's changing it into a neo-historical contemporary house. Ms. Owsley responded that there are other 4-squares in Ft. Collins, like they've chosen. Mr. Hogestad said that the questions in front of the LPC are if the applicants have complied with all necessary requirements, and they have. Secondly, is it so significant that we need to protect it through a non-consensual designation? Ms. Stansfield asked if there has to be a history to it? Ms. McWilliams explained the criteria for designation. Mr. Steven Josephs said that when you say it's significant, what if that's not the original house? In the attic, you can see that it has been overbuilt. He was informed by the Commission that additions that are 50-years old are evaluated for their significance. When we look at a building, we look at all the alterations over time. Sometimes they detract, and sometimes they add. Public input: Mr. Chuck Robinson asked for the definition of a historical house. Margaret and Don Webber: Are the owners wanting it to be a landmark? They were told that the owners do not want it to be a landmark. Ms. Stansfield asked how this change will impact the neighborhood. It will be another 2- story house. And then another one, and another one... Speaking to the visitors, Mr. Hogestad explained that the demolition/alteration review process is required because the total changes proposed would take a home that is eligible for designation, and make it non -eligible. This meeting is to give the neighbors, like yourselves, the opportunity to come and speak. Mr. Hogestad then asked the LPC if there is anything that needs to be documented. He was told that the documentation of the building has been completed. He reminded the Commission that the motion is on whether or not the owners have followed all the requirements, not if members of the LPC approve of the changes proposed. Motion: Mr. Frick moved that the LPC approve the application for the alterations to 404 S. Washington Street, without changes, as the applicant has fulfilled the requirements stated by 14-72 of the Code of the City of Ft. Collins. Seconded by Agnes Dix and approved unanimously, 6-0. Landmark Preservation Commissiop • April 24, 2002 Meeting Minutes Page 4 Comment by Carole Stansfield: She believes that this building is significant for its architecture and because it is 50-years old or older, and disagrees personally to the changes proposed, which will make it ineligible. DESIGNATIONS: 610 Cherry Street, the Reverend Joseph P. Trudel House, presented by Deborah Secor, owner. Staff recommends approving this request for Fort Collins Landmark designation of the Rev. Joseph P. Trudel House, 610 Cherry Street, for its architectural importance, as a good example of the Classic Cottage style of architecture, with excellent integrity. Additionally, the Rev. Joseph P. Trudel House has historical importance to Fort Collins for its association with the Holy Family Church, and was used for many years as the church's rectory. As a part of the City's Eastside and Westside Architectural Survey, the building was evaluated as being individually eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, as well as for designation as a Fort Collins Landmark. Ms. Secor said that when she bought the house, the paperwork said it was built in 1901, but she doesn't know if it was built then or not. The information is from the selling process. Mr. Hogestad said that the house really looks intact, and he is curious about the interior. He was told that the house looks like it is in pretty good shape, with the original woodwork. Two chimneys, vented up from the middle, have been converted. The floor is probably yellow pine. Agnes Dix had researched Reverend Trudel, and found that the Holy Family Church was built under his direction. Although he was French Canadian, he spoke Spanish fluently, and said Mass is Spanish. Ms. Ore said that very often rectory buildings associated with churches have been torn down, and to find one with such integrity is rare. Public input. None. Ms. Watrous said that the owners are to be commended for doing the right thing by this home. Motion: Ms. Ore moved that the LPC designate the Rev. Trudel house at 610 Cherry St. to be a Ft. Collins landmark. Seconded by Ms. Stansfield, and approved unanimously, 6-0. Current Review: 1) 525 Smith Street, George W. Coffin House: Jim and Karen Boyd, the owners, purchased this locally landmarked house a year ago and wish to enlarge the home by way of a rear addition. This will enable them to build a larger kitchen on the first floor Landmark Preservation Commission • April 24, 2002 Meeting Minutes Page 5 and have a larger master bedroom and bath on the second floor. There are basic premises of compatible addition design for historically landmarked houses. They include: additions should be subordinate to the original building in size, scale, mass and height, window proportions should be compatible, windows should line up, obvious vertical and horizontal lines should be continued from the old to the new portions of the house, and materials should be similar. Most importantly, the new construction ridge should be subordinate to the existing historic house. Ms. Ore noticed that "1882" is painted on the gable. She asked if it is an 1882 building? She was told that it probably is. There is a certificate that has been laminated that says that it is. This is a 2-front door house, with two front doors at right angles to each other. It is simple but has nice trim on the front porch, a steep pitched roof, and large windows. Part of the problem of the addition is that the windows go right up into the gable, and there is an addition on the back of house already. Also, from the side street (Myrtle street) 525 is the second house from the corner. Both lots were originally platted for this house, and the addition will be visible from Myrtle Street. It was also noticed that there is not a lot of space between the porch roof and the window. There is an added incompatible window in the back that was designated with the house. Originally, there was a door there. Mr. Boyd said that there is a small garage at the back of the yard, and they may ask to tear this down in the fall. Metal has been attached to the side, and the garage was not designated. The proposed addition will be wider than the gable that is shown coming out -- the 2- story part is 16 feet wide. A new design for the addition was handed out by the applicant to have the addition going lower than the existing roof. The plan shown in the packet, with the offset on the footprint between the existing building and the addition, is preferred by the LPC. Other design elements were discussed, and have been drawn on the plans. How will this appear from the front? The owners were asked by Ms. Stansfield if there is any possibility that they could just build back on the lot, and keep the addition as a one-story? They replied that they'd like to take up less lot size to put one level on top of another, as they would ultimately like to put a 2-car garage back there. Also, this would keep the costs for the foundation down. Finally, if the front has to have a pass -through to the back, it takes up more space. In the house, they need another bedroom with more space. There is a room on the first floor, but it is 9x10, with a closet in there. There isn't even enough room for a double bed. Ms. Tunner added that this is not a restoration or preservation, but an adaptive re -use to make the house meet modern needs. The designer (Keira Harkin) asked if the goal is to lower the roof. Ms. Boyd said that she did not understand the preference for the lower roof on the addition? Landmark Preservation Commissiop • April 24, 2002 Meeting Minutes Page 6 The proposed roof will show which part is the addition, and which is the original, and it will not change the square footage inside. She was told that the LPC would like to see the addition look less overwhelming or subordinate, in comparison to the original structure. Ms. Ore said that at the center of this house may be an old 1-house. 1-houses were commonly made Ls or Ts. There is precedent for making it bigger, and the addition should let this old 1-house be seen. The Commission asked if there are any proposed changes to the original roofline? The owners said that no, all the changes would be in the back. From the front -on perspective you won't see much of the addition. Ms. Boyd said that it probably was an old 1-house. Some windows are one over one, some two over two. Furthermore, inside the house the woodwork on the left side is very ornate, and on the right side it is very plain. Ms. Ore said that these houses are called 1-houses because they were farmhouses that were common in Iowa, Indiana, and Illinois. Ms. Watrous noticed that, if the proposed changes are made, the second story window on the rear would be gone. Public comment: none. The applicant wanted to comment on the drawing. In the rear elevation, regarding the small first floor bedroom that was discussed before, they wanted to utilize more of the space, have part of the roof taken off, with the room expanded to the rear. Mr. Hogestad said that he would like the owners to pay attention to the original windows. They should be the same proportions as the original windows, as this is a very strong character -defining aspect of this house. Ms. Stansfield said that she doesn't think this will end up looking very good, and it isn't a necessity. She doesn't believe this should be happening to a designated house and would prefer it be kept as one -level. Ms. Harkin asked what they are supposed to do if someone objects to the plan. If they hear 8 opinions, and one objection, what do we do? Ms. Watrous said that she believes that the Commission wants it to be less obtrusive. They might want to explore a single story, take all of the comments into consideration. Ms. Harkin replied that if they were to keep it one story, and add all the space the owners require, this would make the addition be all out of proportion. Mr. Hogestad said that the LPC would be happy to look at it at the conceptual level again. Ms. Ore said that they have guidelines that the LPC uses to make decisions. Changes should not detract from the historic integrity of the building, not destroy historic fabric, and so on. The designers have to go with their best sense of preserving the historic structure, and still make it livable for the owners. Ms. Stansfield said that it is difficult to tell what to make of it until the Commission can see the final plans. Landmark Preservation Commissioop April 24, 2002 Meeting Minutes Page 7 • 2) 900 South College, Scott Apts.: Owner, Steve Levinger. The applicant has just purchased the Scott Apartments and had received a no -interest loan from the 2002 loan program. He plans to remove loose putty, clean, and then replace broken or under- sized glass and re -putty all the windows. He had intended to purchase new rear doors on the south side as part of the city loan program application, but found the original French doors on site. They need repair, so he is trying to contact a restoration craftsperson for this work. One of these doors in is good shape, but the other is not. He was advised by a carpenter to get new doors in the same design, although these custom doors are quite expensive. He would like to restore the existing doors. They are historic fabric. Also the wood is more seasoned and probably older growth wood than any new door will be, and will last longer. Mr. Hogestad asked if it is necessary to replace the wood in the windows. Mr. Levinger said that he hasn't seen any wood that is damaged enough to need replacement. The windows need to be reputtied. Also, a lot of the glass is undersized, with a gap, and repainting will be needed. A few windows may need more attention, but for the most part they seem to be pretty good. He said that if he finds windows that the repairperson believes are too badly damaged to be repaired, he will have them leave that window aside, and will come before the LPC to see what should be done with it. He also originally thought that the electrical system would be causing more problems than it is causing right now. It is working, and is not a safely issue. About a year after reputtying the windows, he would like to repaint. He said that if you paint over putty, you'll seal it and it won't cure as well. No public comment: Motion: Ms. Ore moved that the LPC give final review approval for the window and door rehabilitation at the Scott Apartments, with the proviso that the doors and windows are repaired whenever possible. If they can't be repaired, the owner will come back to the LPC with plans for the replacements. Seconded by Carole Stansfield, and approved unanimously, 6-0. 3) 629 W. Mountain Ave. Historic Shenk House: Conceptual/final review of porch rehabilitation. David Haimson, owner. The applicant's brick front porch at the Shenk House is seriously in need of repair. The applicant has received a 2002 No - Interest Loan for the work. The brick walls and stone foundations are corbelled because there isn't a proper support under the stone foundation. The porch is actually leaning forward. Water draining off the roof has exacerbated the problem, but new gutters should help this situation. The concrete porch floor is cracked, and the porch column bases are rotting. The porch will be disassembled and rebuilt as it was originally. A concrete block foundation will be built below ground. As match work for the loan program, a deteriorated central load -bearing front -to -back beam will be replaced from the cellar level. Other match work includes plumbing replacement and a kitchen/bathroom remodel. Landmark Preservation Commissil • April 24, 2002 Meeting Minutes Page 8 On the front porch at the east side of house, the gutter was recently replaced so water damage on the dirt area has caused the porch to sag and now needs to be rebuilt with a foundation. The owner plans to have it all taken apart (including the capstone, bricks and stone foundation) and build a concrete block foundation, and then rebuild with the stone and brick. There is tuck pointing in the mortar, no raised bead left on the rest of the house. The column base has rotted, and will require either replacement or repair. The LPC would prefer that the owner repair the original fabric rather than replace it. Epoxy consolidate or Bondo can be used to repair the column. The Commission asked if there are plans for digging down to get under the frost. The owner replied that yes, the mason will do this. He will excavate to 30 inches, and lay block to grade. Considering the rest of the work, Ms. Stansfield asked about the beam. The owner replied that the old part of the house has 6 rooms, three on each side of a central beam. The front third has a sandstone wall in the crawlspace that supports the beam. The back part, supported by the beam has sagged, and the doors are funny shapes. The contractor looked it over to give an estimate on fixing it. He noticed that wall has been compromised due to drilling. It looks like the beam will need to be replaced, and will probably be replaced with a steel beam. They will eventually hoist the floor up until it is straight. Dick Beardmore, structural engineer, was contacted, but since then the report has been lost. He had two solutions, and will be contacted for his input. A copy of this information will be sent to the LPC. Ms. Watrous said that she thinks this porch will look lovely when it's done. No public input. Ms. Watrous moved that the LPC approve the conceptual and final review of the porch rehabilitation at the Shenk House, 629 W. Mountain Avenue, with the stipulation that the mortar match the house foundation mortar profile, and that the column bases be repaired. The structural work that will follow must be submitted to the Commission. Seconded by Ms. Dix, and approved unanimously, 6-0. Demolition/Alteration Review, 730 W. Mountain Ave.: Tom and Yee Campbell. The applicant is requesting a waiver of Section 14-72 (b)(3),(4),(5) and (6) of the Code, due to substantial hardship. If the waiver is successful, the applicant also seeks an appropriate adjustment to Section 14-72(b)(1), the $200 fee requirement, that is commensurate with the time and expense the Advance Planning Department directs to this case, minus the public hearing requirement. In considering the request for a waiver of the portions of Section 14-72 of the City Code, the Commission needs to decide if the applicant has shown a substantial hardship, and find that a waiver does not significantly erode the spirit and purpose of the Code. Landmark Preservation Commissiop • April 24, 2002 Meeting Minutes Page 9 The house was constructed c. 1910 in the "Folk Victorian" architectural style. The property was surveyed by Jason Marmor in June, 1998 as a part of the EastsideMestside Neighborhoods Survey. The property was found to be eligible for individual designation as a Fort Collins Landmark, as well as eligible for designation as a part of a potential district. The home is currently a 2-bedroom, 1 bath, containing about 1,000 sq. ft. The owner proposes to add a complete second floor, to raise the building to repair the foundation and accommodate a basement, to extend the side porch to the north and west to create a family room adjoining the kitchen, and to wrap the front porch around to Grant Street. Because these alterations would affect the building's eligibility for designation, the property owner is required to comply with Section 14-72 of the Code, the demolition/alteration review process, prior to obtaining a building permit. The applicant is requesting a waiver of the Code due to substantial hardship. The requirements would delay the receipt of a building permit by at least 30 days, occurring during the peak window for building activity. Further, the applicant is entering CSU's MBA program in the fall, and since he is acting as general contractor on the project, it is vital that they complete the majority of the construction this summer, before needing to dedicate his time to school. The application did successfully go through the Zoning Board of Appeals process to address variances needed for the project. The ZBA process does include a public hearing process, including notification of all property owners within 150 feet. The applicant has also circulated a petition among his neighbors and the property owners within the area of notification soliciting their support of the project. Mr. Hogestad asked if the issue is about the process, not the project? Staff informed him that this was correct. The owner handed out a map of all the homes that they had contacted. The owners walked through the neighborhood and contacted 74 of the owners, telling them of the plans. All homeowners in the neighborhood seem to be in support of it, and consider that it will add value to their own homes. The owner has gotten 84 signatures of support. On the map, the homes highlighted in blue have all signed the petition. They are now in the final design plans for the home and hoped to have a permit by May 8tn However, they won't be able to if these requirements are not waived. The owners are appealing to the Commission for the waivers. They believe that their request will not erode the spirit of the requirements. The Commission asked if this has happened before, that the fee has been waived? They were told that it has happened in one previous instance. The fee is to cover administrative costs for the staff time to complete the requirements that he seeks to waive. Mr. Frick asked if the home is eligible for designation? He was told that it is, in its current configuration, but it won't be eligible after they change it. However, the issue is not the design of the house. The issue is about the requirements. Landmark Preservation Commission • April 24, 2002 Meeting Minutes Page 10 The owner handed out a sheet, which shows the styles and sizes of the houses in the neighborhood. This house is not unique, and the type of house is represented throughout the neighborhood. Ms. Watrous said that the proposed work will result in an entire change of character, and will fill up the entire lot. The remains of the original house will be miniscule. She is not wanting to waive any requirements for this, thinking that "hardship' means a death in the family, illness, and so on. Mr. Frank said that the spirit of the requirements were to make sure that a house was not demolished overnight. It seems clear that the applicant has fulfilled the spirit of the process. He has done more than would have been done if he'd followed the official process. Furthermore, there was an official hearing with the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Campbell replied that he feels that they have exceeded the standard. They've effectively had 84 neighbors participate. Mr. Campbell was asked if he was aware of the National Register potential of Mountain Avenue? However, if enough houses on the avenue make these kinds of significant changes, then Mountain Avenue will no longer to be eligible as a historic district. Ms. Stansfield asked if the Commissioners ever have an opportunity to say no, we don't like this? She was told that in cases like this the code does not provide for evaluating the design. The LPC can offer suggestions. The issue is if the applicant has a significant hardship. No public input. Motion: Mr. Frick moved that the LPC approve the waiver of portions 14-72(b)1, 2c, and all of sections 3 and 4, due to substantial hardship, for the property at 730 W. Mountain Ave. Applicant has agreed to do 2a and 2b. Seconded by Ms. Dix, and approved, 4-2. Ms. Stansfield and Ms. Watrous voted against approval, Ms. Dix, Mr. Frick, Mr. Hogestad and Ms. Ore voted for approval. Mr. Frick moved that the applicant has fulfilled the requirement of section 14- 72b5, based on the waivers just granted, and subject to receiving 2a and 2b. Seconded by Ms. Dix. Approved 4-2. Ms. Stansfield and Ms. Watrous voted against approval, Ms. Dix, Mr. Frick, Mr. Hogestad and Ms. Ore voted for approval. Ms. Ore commented that she is uncomfortable about possibly setting any kind of precedent for waiving requirements of the demolition/ alteration review process. • Landmark Preservation Commissiop • April 24, 2002 Meeting Minutes Page 11 DISCUSSION ITEMS: Ms. Tunner asked for comments on the Deines Barn and Asmus Sign Shop historic structure assessment reports and Old Waterworks historical interpretation report, which were sent in the last packet. She would like comments by Friday. OTHER BUSINESS: Mr. Frank suggested that the LPC put the discussion of the demolition/alteration process on a future agenda, and feels it is a matter of concern. Ms. Stansfield said that it appears that anybody can do whatever they want to their historic buildings. The private property ethic is that a person's home is their castle. Meeting adjourned: 8:32 p.m. Minutes prepared by Connie Merrill.