HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 06/25/2008LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
June 25, 2008 Minutes
Council Liaison: David Roy (407-7393)
Staff Liaison: Mr. Joe Frank (221-6376)
Commission Chairperson: Ms. Earen Russell
SUMMARY OF MEETING: The Commission conducted the Final Hearing on alterations
for 531 East Laurel Street; held a complimentary review of alterations for 624 Sycamore
Street; approved changes to State Tax Credit Part 1 for both 409-411 Whedbee Street and
820 Remington Street; discussed the MOA on the Mason Corridor Project, and discussed
items for Council’s Periodic Review. Ms. Russell will represent the LPC on the 252 East
Mountain project. The April 23rd and May 14th 2008 minutes were approved as submitted.
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Commission called to order by Chairperson
Russell with a quorum present at 5:30 p.m. at 281 N. College Ave., Fort Collins, Colorado.
Earen Russell, John Albright, Terence Hoaglund, Alan Ballou, Bud Frick, and Ian Shuff were
present. Joe Frank, Senior City Planner, Karen McWilliams, Preservation Planner, and
Alyson McGee, Preservation Planner, represented City Staff.
GUESTS: Michael and Jennifer Barna, Owners of 531 East Laurel Street; Ellen Lawson,
Eastside Neighborhoods resident; Allen and Jennifer Kenyon, Owners of 624 Sycamore
Street; Steve Mack, Owner of 409-411 Whedbee Street; Carol Tunner, Representative for
820 Remington Street; Kathleen Bracke, Transportation Planning and Special Projects
Director and Denise Weston, Senior Transportation Planner.
AGENDA REVIEW: Additions to the agenda are amending the State Tax Credit Part 1 for
409-411 Whedbee Street, owned by Steve Mack, and the State Tax Credit Part 1 for 820
Remington Street, owned by Bob King. There will also be an update on the Mason Corridor
Transit Project Environmental Assessment.
STAFF REPORTS:
Ms. McWilliams had discussions with the Museum regarding the sanstone carriage mounting
block at the Mosman House. CSU is selling the property, and there is concern the block
could be stolen or sold by a new owner. It was felt that, for its preservation, it would be
appropriate to have it moved to the Museum. The LPC was provided with a summary of
State CLG Coordinator Dan Corson’s comments, following the Certified Local Government
review conducted in May. Staff has received notification from Colorado Preservation, Inc
that they are looking for significant endangered places in Colorado. Those properties selected
will be announced in February 2009. Staff and Ms. Russell met with Bob Hosanna and J.D.
Nelson of the Neenan Company, and discussed design characteristics and building details for
the 252 East Mountain project. Ms. McWilliams asked for a representative from LPC to act
as an ongoing liaison on that project.
Landmark Preservation Commission
June 25, 2008 Meeting - 2 -
Mr. Frick made a motion that Ms. Russell be the representative for the 252 East
Mountain project. Mr. Albright seconded the motion. The motion carried (6-0).
Ms. McGee reported on a call she received from Astrid, the owner of the Antlers Hotel on
Linden Street. The tenant, without her knowledge, decided to remove the historic stone entry,
and jack hammered a section of the historic feature before she stopped him. Astrid asked for
direction. Ms. McGee has drafted a letter to the tenant informing him that he is in violation
of Article 14 of the City code. At this time, the city will not cite the tenant, but the damage
has to be repaired. The tenant wanted a sloped entry, and as removal of the stone step did not
require a building permit, he proceeded with the work. He claims that a sloped entry is
required in order to be ADA accessible, but the Building Administrator has assured staff that
this is not the case. Staff is investigating options to repair the damage.
COMMISSION MEMBER’S REPORTS:
Mr. Hoaglund volunteered to attend the DDA meeting on July 10 for Ms. Russell.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
April 23rd 2008 Minutes: Approved as submitted.
May 14th 2008 Minutes: Approved as submitted.
PUBLIC INPUT: Chairperson Russell asked if anyone present wished to discuss any item
not on the agenda. There were no items.
DEMOLITION ALTERATION REVIEW:
Final Hearing on Alterations Proposed for 531 East Laurel Street – Michael and
Jennifer Barna, Owners
Ms. McWilliams presented the background on the property. The property has also been
posted, and notices of this public hearing were mailed to all property owners within 500 feet
of this property. She noted that staff has received three telephone calls regarding the
alterations. One call was from Ann Turner, who owns a house on Garfield Street. Her
concern is about the dwelling being demolishing and the property becoming a higher density
use, i.e., bed and breakfast. Gary Kale at 501 East Laurel stated that he has no issues with
the proposed alterations. The third caller was unable to be contacted. Ms. Russell stated that
the plans were previously presented to the LPC during the Preliminary Hearing. Mr. Barna
remarked that the Barnas and their builder are trying to maintain the historical look of the
house. They have chosen a design consistent with houses from the turn of the century. He
stated that the trim work, detailing, and color scheme would all be in keeping with older
houses. Mr. Barna stated they hope to start possibly next week or the week after. Ms.
Russell questioned why, in Jason Marmor’s Eastside survey, it states that the home is not
historical, but the staff report says it is. Ms. McWilliams explained that the property was
found to be individually eligible for Landmark designation by the LPC Chair and Director of
Advance Planning in their review, and that the assessment on the survey is the field opinion
of the consultant.
Public input: Ellen Lawson, 519 East Laurel, spoke. Ms. Lawson currently lives in a
500 square foot workman’s cottage. The block she lives on is bounded by Plum Street,
Whedbee and Smith. The alley between Whedbee and Smith is the end of the Laurel School
Landmark Preservation Commission
June 25, 2008 Meeting - 3 -
Historic District. Ms. Lawson stated she felt that two story homes are unusual in this area, a
supported this by her observations. Her concern is that 805 Smith Street was recently
demolished and the approved plans describe the new house as a 2 story, but it will be very
tall and very large. It is currently being built, and will be the tallest house in that area. It
adjoins 5 lots and directly overlooks two of these lots. There will be no privacy whatsoever.
The people living next to it will be miserable, and will be more likely to sell, which will
result in more large two story development. Land in the Eastside is desirable to developers
because it is relatively cheap. Ms. Lawson expressed her concern for the future of the
neighborhood if this trend continues. Ms. Lawson feels the workman’s cottages are
important, and asked for the Commission to get involved in preventing these scrape offs and
pop ups. Mr. Frick explained that the Commission’s hands are tied, and suggested that she
and her neighbors should talk to her council member. If there is enough concern expressed,
Council may feel there is a need for protection. Ms. Lawson stated she has talked to council
members before, and they listen to boards and committees for their direction. Mr. Frank said
that while we certainly appreciate her concerns, there are likely as many people on the other
side who want no additional regulations. He is not sure Council sees it as an issue yet. Ms.
McGee commented that the Commission will be discussing objectives later for the upcoming
Council review on July 8, and this is certainly one to discuss. Ms. Lawson volunteered to
walk the neighborhood and get an actual count of one and two story homes. Mr. Barna asked
if the property were in the Laurel Historical School District, would that preclude demolitions.
The city’s regulations would apply. Mr. Albright said the National Register level of
designation offers the poorest level of protection, and that protection gets stronger as it
becomes more local. The Commission thanked Ms. Lawson for her concerns, and Ms.
Lawson thanked the Commission. Ms. Russell asked for other public input. There was none.
Mr. Hoaglund made a motion to approve the final hearing on the alternations
proposed for 531 East Laurel. Mr. Albright seconded the motion. The motion carried (6-0).
COMPLIMENTARY REVIEW: 624 Sycamore Street, Recommendations for Addition
– Allen and Jennifer Kenyon
Ms. McWilliams introduced the applicants. The home is a two-story side-gable
vernacular residence, built in 1920. The property is not a designated Landmark. Mr. Kenyon
said the front of the house is the oldest part. The house appears to have been moved to the
site. Mrs. Kenyon explained that Kevin McMurray at Empire Carpentry had lived here for a
few years, and told her the home had been moved from the high school area. The roofer said
it is two different houses put together. Mrs. Kenyon stated they are exploring ideas for their
proposed rear addition, with the idea they would like to retain the historic character of the
house. Mrs. Kenyon stated that the foundation of the existing rear addition is not centered
but is offset to the east side. One contractor’s plan is for a roof pitch of about 5 -12, while
Empire Carpentry’s plan is for a steeper slope with dormers, which results in less head room,
but is more historic appearing. Mrs. Kenyon would like to keep the concept simple, add an
extra bedroom and bathroom, and be able to see the mountains to the west. She wanted to
pick the Commission’s brains, and ask for members’ input.
Ms. Russell appreciated the Kenyon’s forethought and their interest in working with the
Commission. Mr. Frick liked the concept of the dormers, and maintaining the main roof of
the house. He suggested that they leave the original roof line of the one story portion, and set
the dormer inside a little bit and set back the roof. This creates an end set before you go
Landmark Preservation Commission
June 25, 2008 Meeting - 4 -
further up the roof slope. He stated that by using the profile of the existing porch roof, you
would readily see what the original house looked like. Mr. Kenyon commented that on the
back of the house is an addition on an addition. He stated there is a shallower pitch on the
east side. He asked if Mr. Frick meant that both the east and west slopes would be the same,
and if that would be about 1’ from the framing. Mr. Frick said yes, and that the dormer
would be 2’ from the end wall. Mr. Frick provided the homeowners with a quick sketch of
his concept. Mr. Kenyon said it looks as if the new top peak would be right above the old
peak so it’s centered between the foundations. Mr. Frick explained that the upper roof
becomes the dormer for the whole second story and that the lower roof plane is set in about
1’, hopefully 2’. To prevent ice damming, it drains off to lower gutters. Ms. Russell asked if
there were any other suggestions. Mr. Frick said he’d like to see taller and narrower
windows, possibly double-hung windows. Ms. McWilliams suggested getting recycled
windows from ReSource. Mr. and Mrs. Kenyon thanked the Commission for their time and
ideas. Chairperson Russell asked for public discussion/comments. There was none.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Steve Mack, 409 Whedbee St, amending State Tax Credit Part 1.
Ms. McGee reminded the Commission that the project came before them for State Tax Credit
review on April 9, 2008. Mr. Mack stated that as the project has progressed, problems have
been found with the rear shed addition due to the roof slope. Ms. McGee and Mr. Mack met
yesterday, and Ms. McGee felt it was a fairly minor change but that the review authority
should be given to LPC as opposed to administrative approval. Mr. Mack presented revised
marked-up drawings indicating the requested change to the roof over the porch and rear
entrances. Mr. Mack stated the current building design provides poor drainage, and he would
like to improve the drainage and be able to use dimensional shingles for the entire roof with
bitumen all the way up the low slope portion. Ms. Russell asked for public comments. There
was none.
Mr. Frick made a motion to approve the changes to 409 Whedbee Street, as presented, for
State Tax Credit Part 1. Mr. Albright seconded the motion. The motion carried (6-0).
Bob King, 820 Remington Street, amending State Tax Credit Part 1
Carol Tunner, represented the applicant, Bob King. In January, the Commission gave
approval for the use of Q-bond along the exterior foundation. The initial approval was for
interior use only. There is a big hole in the foundation on the east elevation, facing the alley.
Mr. King filled in this hole with Q-bond, which contains fiberglass, for strength. The right
half of the foundation has cracks, and mixed materials were used in its construction. Mr.
King would like to continue with Q-bond on that portion of the foundation, to give it more
strength and to cover the variety of materials. The north elevation faces the next door
neighbor’s yard. The color of the Q-bond already applied doesn’t match the concrete block.
Mr. King will tint the Q-bond to make it match the existing tan. He will then re-coat the
already Q-bonded portions. Other options are to paint over the Q-bond, but that presents a
maintenance problem, or brick imaging, which lasts for 25 years, but is expensive. Mr.
Ballou asked how thick the Q-bond was. Mr. Frick said it was typically applied about 1/8th
of an inch thick. Ms. Tunner noted that the foundation really can’t be seen. All interior
walls have also been Q-bonded, as previously approved. Mr. Shuff asked if there was mortar
Landmark Preservation Commission
June 25, 2008 Meeting - 5 -
infill in the hole. Ms. Tunner said that the hole contains a large stone in the middle, with Q-
bond around it. Ms. Russell asked for public input. There was none.
Mr. Shuff made a motion to approve Q-bond application, with tan color to match the
existing foundation, for the east and north foundation walls of 820 Remington Street as
proposed, for State Tax Credit Part 1. Mr. Hoaglund seconded the motion. The motion
carried (6-0).
Mason Street Transit Project Environmental Assessment: Kathleen Bracke,
Transportation Special Projects Director and Ms. Denise Weston, Senior Transportation
Planner
Ms. Russell had a conflict of interest on the Mason Corridor project. She turned over
the meeting to Vice-Chair Mr. Shuff, and left the meeting.
Ms. McWilliams noted that a summary of the meeting of the Consulting Parties held
on June 18, 2008, had been emailed to Commission members this morning. Ms. Weston is
preparing a draft MOA on the PSCO building, with demolition as the mitigation measure.
HABS/HAER documentation will be included in the MOA, so there can be no deviation later
on either that or the brick salvage. Ms. Weston pointed out that the MOA would include a
statement that the building would be relocated or demolished by June 1, 2009. She suggested
February 2009 as the time frame to have the money in hand and a plan in place if the
building is to be relocated, but wondered if more time was needed to get the funds. March
2009 was agreed upon. Ms. Weston also asked for creative ideas for reusing the bricks and
for interpretative signing. She is willing to put into the MOA any specifics that can be
agreed on. Mr. Frick said to add deconstructing the building. Mr. Shuff asked who would
own the brick - CSURF? Mr. Hoaglund asked who will end up with the land after demolition.
Ms. Weston said it belongs to CSURF. Ms. Weston stated that if the MOA contains a
statement of reuse, then there won’t be any disagreement on what will happen to the brick.
Mr. Frick suggested she contact Richard Beardmore of AE Design Associates for appropriate
wording on deconstruction of the brick. The next meeting is scheduled on July 23, 2008,
when the Commission will need to make a formal decision on whether to sign or not sign the
MOA. Ms. Weston will send the final MOA to each member electronically to review, and
then everyone can provide comments before the July 23 meeting. Mr. Shuff asked about
CSU’s involvement, and asked if CSU has put the word out to the public that the building is
available. They should be required to do that. The Commission thanked Ms. Bracke and Ms.
Weston for their update and presentation.
Mr. Shuff asked about CSU’s plans for the historic homes that line College Avenue on the
same block as the PSCO building. The Commission expressed concern about their
preservation, as CSU is rumored to have redevelopment plans for the entire block. Mr. Frick
asked if CSURF is private, not public, and don’t they have to go through the same
development review process, since they are a private entity? Mr. Frank said yes. Mr.
Albright said CSU should ask for a courtesy review. A courtesy review would be beneficial,
instead of going through another imbroglio like the Public Service building. Mr. Shuff stated
that the whole neighborhood is affected by CSU’s plans. Mr. Ballou commented that
Landmark Preservation Commission
June 25, 2008 Meeting - 6 -
CSURF’s plans for the block are inconsistent with CSU’s master plan and would like to see it.
Mr. Frick replied that is why we need to do a courtesy review.
Ms. Russell returned.
Periodic Council Review of the LPC – Commission Final Recommendations for
Program Enhancements
The Commission review item previously suggested for discussion at the Council
periodic review. Staff has added details of how each suggested item could be accomplished.
Based on the discussion tonight, she will finalize Council’s questionnaire for its July 8, 2008
work session. Mr. Frank noted that we have ½ hour with Council members at the most and
about ten minutes to discuss key topics.
Item #1: Increase funding for the Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program, to allow
for larger loan amounts; increase each maximum loan amount to $10,000, instead of the
current $5,000. Mr. Frank stated the funds don’t automatically roll over if they are not used.
He has to submit a request for unspent funds to be returned. Ms. McGee said the City of
Loveland offers $10,000 for commercial projects and $5,000 for residential. Mr. Hoaglund
said we need to get more funding. The Commission agreed that additional funding was a
high priority. Mr. Frank said the amount funded to each project should be a minimum of
$5,000, which is the amount required for State Tax Credit applications.
Item #2: Develop a program to educate the public about historic preservation in
association with sustainable building practices. Mr. Shuff stated to consider adaptive reuse
of old buildings. Mr. Frick commented that this item will take funding for educational
materials. Ms. Russell said sustainability and preservation are the goals.
Item #3: Develop a brochure for the Development Review Center that shows sensitive
standards and guidelines for restoring/rehabilitating buildings. Commission’s comments
were that this may be too specific for council. Would it address pop tops and scrape offs, and
guidelines for historic buildings or just older buildings. Is this only for eligible properties or
both? Mr. Shuff asked if Staff could put a brochure together. Ms. McWilliams stated that it
is a complex project that likely requires a consultant and additional funding.
Item #4: Increase the number of local Landmarked Districts. This would obviously
require outreach to the public about the benefits and processing for landmarking. It was
suggested that # 4 be combined with #3
Item #5: Resurrect the Design Review Subcommittee. Mr. Frick commented that this
is similar to the complimentary review conducted earlier this evening, and he felt it worked
very well. Ms. Russell asked how this subcommittee worked before, and Ms. McWilliams
described the process. The reviews provided professional feedback to homeowners. She
reiterated that the subcommittee’s recommendations were not binding. Mr. Shuff stated this
was intended to be a preview before coming to LPC. Mr. Frick stated the process worked
well and homeowners would usually come back with a historically appropriate design.
Item #6: Improve communication between Council and the Commission. Ms. McGee
suggested a periodic newsletter that should be sent to inform Council. Property owners
should also be encouraged to thank Council for designations, loans, etc. Ms. Russell
recommended a quarterly newsletter. It was suggested that it contain biographies of the
Commission members to reveal their backgrounds. Additionally, each commission member
may be asked to write on various topics. It was also suggested the Commission encourage
the Council liaison attend meetings twice a year.
Landmark Preservation Commission
June 25, 2008 Meeting - 7 -
Item #7: Create a “buffer” district around Old Town Historic District, to protect this
area from incompatible or adversely impactful development and the issuance of height
variances. Mr. Frick pointed out that the buffer could be a little as two blocks, but within this
buffer, variances should not be granted for height. Mr. Frank replied that the city’s processes
usually work well, and ultimately results in good designs in most instances.
Meeting is adjourned at 7:45 PM.
Respectfully submitted by
Diana Sanger, Secretary