Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 04/09/2008LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting April 9, 2008 Minutes Council Liaison: David Roy (407-7393) Staff Liaison: Joe Frank (221-6376) Commission Chairperson: Alyson McGee SUMMARY OF MEETING: The LPC granted approval for State Tax Credit Part 1 for the duplex at 409-411 Whedbee Street. The Commission also recommended conceptual and final design review approval for two projects, an addition and alterations to the Dura and Neil Graham House, 811, Peterson Street, and alterations to the J.M. Glick House, 425 East Laurel Street. The Commission held a conceptual review of the Observatory Park Phase II development project, 720-730 Prospect Road. Transportation gave the LPC an update on the Section 106 process for the Mason Corridor BRT Project. Mr. Shuff agreed to represent the LPC on CSU’s Architectural Review Board CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: The Commission was called to order by Chairperson Alyson McGee with a quorum present at 5:40 p.m. at 281 N. College Ave., Fort Collins, Colorado. Alan Ballou, Earen Russell, John Albright, Ian Shuff, Terence Hoaglund and Bud Frick were present. Karen McWilliams, Preservation Planner, represented City Staff. GUESTS: Steve Mack, Owner, and Carol Tunner, Consultant, for 409-411 Whedbee Street; Elizabeth Aron and Bruce Berkowitz, Owners, Dale Dirks, Dirks Design, and Glenn Zankey, Down Zankey Architects, for 811 Peterson Street; Jeff Evans, Owner, Frank Vaught and Tulu Toros, Vaught-Frye Architects, and Per Hogestad, neighbor, for 720-730 West Prospect Road; Lisa Demberg, Owner, and Rick Newman, Naturalbuild, for 425 East Laurel Street; Denise Weston, Transportation Planner, Kathleen Bracke, Senior Transportation Planner, Dick Beardmore, AE Design, and Carol Tunner, citizen, for the Mason Corridor BRT Project Update. AGENDA REVIEW: An update on the Mason Corridor BRT Project was added under other business. STAFF REPORTS: Ms. McWilliams reminded the LPC of the May 2 CLG Commission Training Workshop, sponsored by the City of Fort Collins. Dan Corson, CHS Intergovernmental Services Coordinator, will be attending the May 10th LPC meeting, for its scheduled CLG review. Ms. McWilliams reminded members about the periodic reviews of the boards and commissions that are done by the city clerk’s office, and directed their attention to the questionnaire seeking input from the Commission regarding changes the LPC would like to see. This will be discussed as a group at a later meeting. The Commission received a CLG grant for one member to attend the NAPC Forum conference in New Orleans. An LPC representative is needed to sit on CSU’s Architectural Review Committee. The committee has lapsed in last couple years and CSU is re-instating it. The LPC chair typically takes on this responsibility, but the chair Landmark Preservation Commission April 9, 2008 Meeting Page 2 of 6 has a conflict of interest. Mr. Shuff volunteered to sit on the committee, and was approved. COMMISSION MEMBER’S REPORTS: At the March DDA meeting, a plaza and parks design for the Poudre Valley Arts Center was discussed. This Arts Center is on North College south of the Old Power Plant. Also discussed were the newspaper rack condominiums, which have been approved on first reading by City Council. Ms. McGee reported that the bill to extend the State Tax Credit program until 2020 passed the House today. One change included is that CLG’s will not be required to notify the State Historic Preservation Office on and annual basis that they want to, or do not want to, review tax credit projects. This bill will be going to the Senate in about a week. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:  Jan 9th minutes – approved, no changes  Jan 23rd minutes – approved, no changes  March 12th minutes – approved, but revise to make the language for each motion consistent. PUBLIC INPUT: None. STATE TAX CREDIT REVIEW: 409-411 Whedbee, Steve Mack, Owner, and Carol Tunner, Consultant - State Tax Credit, Part 1. Ms. Tunner reviewed the staff report, and summarized changes made to the plans since the complimentary review presented to the LPC at its March 12 meeting. They have manipulated interior rooms around to make more space. Mr. Mack has figured out a way to relocate the water heater into 409 Whedbee, without the need for a small addition, by building a closet for the water heater on the porch. The porch wall contains three mismatched and somewhat broken sets of windows. Two of those windows will be taken out, and the porch will be re-side with matching siding. On the south side of 411, which is 5-6 feet from the neighbor, is an existing 2x5 ft window. They would like to install a 2x3 window. On 409, the north window will be moved slightly so they can make the water heater closet. There is a non-bearing wall that will be removed, to open the room up. An access hole to the crawl space will be relocated. One chimney in 409 has been abandoned and he is going to take it out completely. The one in 411 will be removed to down below the roofline. Ms. McGee asked about the intent to replace windows with tilt packs if the historic windows are beyond repair. Mr. Mack assured the commission that if they can be repaired, he will. Ms. McGee asked about re-pointing the foundation. Mr. Mack said he will be pulling the whole foundation wall out and then rebuild the wall. Mr. Hoaglund asked if they have considered using a tank-less water heater to save space? Mr. Mack replied that they are expensive. Also, there are issues with the gas lines and the ambient temperature. Mr. Mack discussed how his adjusted basis will be calculated for the Federal Tax Credit basis. He noted that, for this project, getting the Federal Tax Credit will make the difference between the project being worthwhile. Mr. Ballou moved that the LPC, as a reviewing entity under CRS Section 39-22- 514, grant approval of State Tax Credit, Part 1, for the rehabilitation work on the duplex Landmark Preservation Commission April 9, 2008 Meeting Page 3 of 6 house at 409-411 Whedbee Street. Mr. Shuff seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0). DESIGN REVIEW: 811 Peterson Street, Dura and Neil Graham House, Elizabeth Aron and Bruce Berkowitz, Owners; Dale Dirks, Dirks Design; Glenn Zankey, Down Zankey Architects – Conceptual and Final Review of Proposed addition. This project was previously discussed at the November 28, 2007 LPC meeting. Dale Dirks, consultant, presented a model of the house and addition. The 1980 addition would be removed. The owners want a bigger bedroom as well as a second bathroom. The rear dormer would be extended by 10 feet. They are also proposing to add an additional stall to the garage. Mr. Shuff complimented having a model. However, he felt that the plans were a bit ambiguous with what is new and what is old. The rear elevation has a little more latitude on what can occur and still keep the overall integrity of the house. He asked if the existing stairs at the front would stay. The answer was yes. Ms. McGee asked if the applicant had looked at the possibility of not having the addition come off the side. The owners felt that by not having the addition off the side, it would make the house really long and narrow and the backyard would start to disappear. They would have to cut the trees down. The garage has a newer door. It is like a wide single; two cars cannot fit into it. They would like to build an addition to the garage for another stall. Mr. Shuff moved for approval for conceptual and final design review of the proposed addition and alterations to the Dura and Neil Graham House, 811, Peterson Street, as presented. Mr. Albright seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0). DESIGN REVIEW: 720 and 730 West Prospect Road, Observatory Park Phase II Development, Jeff Evans, Owner; Frank Vaught and Tulu Toros, Vaught-Frye Architects – Conceptual Review of Proposed Development Project Phase I, located at 808-812 W. Prospect Road, is a 4 story building with a full basement. All of the parking for Phase I is surface parking behind the building. It is Mr. Evans’s desire to preserve the integrity of both of the historic houses affected by Phase II to the fullest extent possible. As previously discussed with the LPC, the house at 730 needs to be moved about 30 feet forward. The smaller of the 2 homes will be used as a guest house, providing housing for parents that come to visit their children, etc. The house at 730 would be used as a bed and breakfast or as management offices for the two apartment buildings. They are trying to keep the historic houses looking like they are on individual lots in a residential setting. The zoning is HMN = High Density Multi-Use. The minimum density is 20 units per acre and there is no maximum. There is a height restriction of 5 stories. Parking requirements have been removed due to the Mason Street Corridor Overlay. For Phase II, a 5 story building is planned There would be 60 parking spaces, 30 at grade (the 1st floor to be entirely concealed parking) and 30 below grade, so there will be no visible parking. Ms. McGee asked about visitor parking. Mr. Evans noted that CSU is building a parking garage two blocks away. There is also surface parking associated with Phase I. The floor plan for Phase II would be the same as that for Landmark Preservation Commission April 9, 2008 Meeting Page 4 of 6 Phase I. They are going to implement some design strategies to scale the building down and introduce balconies and dormers, to break up the massing while also retaining a character that is consistent with both buildings. The goal is to give character to this building that is complimentary to the historic structures. Ms. McGee asked if they looked at other areas for the detention area that they are showing in front of 730. That was the only place it would work. Ms. McGee asked if the detention area is going to be a retaining wall, and if so, how deep will it be? It will be about 6.5 feet deep and shaped like an amphitheater. The retaining wall will be made of locally quarried natural stone; not concrete block. Mr. Evans described a geothermal heating and cooling well field that is under the parking lot behind the Phase I building. This field was designed and engineered to work for both Phase I and Phase II. The project has a silver lead certification and is one point away from gold. Mr. Evans has purchased a 30ft wide, 271 foot long easement to the north, which will serve multiple purposes. It is a private multimodal pathway which allows bicycles, skateboards, scooters etc. but no cars. The pathway will be a 6 ft wide sidewalk that connects the sidewalk at Prospect to the sidewalk at Lake. They will use pervious concrete. It is the same concrete mixture used at New Belgium. The pathway will have 3 points of access for emergency vehicles. It is servicing not just the residents of those 2 buildings, since it is brought out to Prospect. This will be the first private multimodal pathway in Fort Collins. It will be the shortest connection from campus to the 6 mile long Spring Creek Trail. He needs to add 26 new trees to the property. Mr. Frick stated that adding a row of trees behind the historic properties would help make those houses feel like they are on their own residential lots. Public Input: Per Hogestad asked about materials; will they be native sandstone? Mr. Toros responded that it will be cement stucco with asphalt roof shingle. Mr. Hogestad noted that the new parking lot at CSU is actually a zero gain lot. It simply replaces old parking that has been removed. Further Commission member comments: Mr. Shuff noted that it is a big building, but that it is allowed under current zoning. Detailing is sympathetic to the existing historic structures. Site plan decisions have been good. Ms. McGee has concerns about the detention area, because it could have the potential to look like buildings sitting on islands. She noted that she would have preferred to see it in the back of the building. Mr. Frick commented that the highest level of the detention pond is at grade. DESIGN REVIEW: 425 East Laurel Street, Lisa Demberg, Owner; Rick Newman, Naturalbuild, Contractor – Conceptual and Final Review of Proposed Alterations The owner is planning to rebuild the mudporch addition on the rear of the home. The siding will be replaced, and a French door added, along with new windows. On the east elevation, they are proposing three very small windows to replace the existing double- hung windows. The main reasons why they want to change to this style of window are for privacy, security, and insulation. The double hung windows, while older, are not original windows. They believe that none of the materials on the mud porch are original. The foundation is smooth cut rock. Mr. Newman has been very sensitive about restoring many aspects of the house. Landmark Preservation Commission April 9, 2008 Meeting Page 5 of 6 Ms. McGee pointed out that original material does not necessarily make it acceptable to change. The material may still be historic and have significance. Mr. Shuff says the 3 small punch windows need some built-up trim element that makes them look more like those on a typical porch. Try to keep the narrow and taller double hung windows on the back and west side. For the siding, get a 3-4” trim board behind, and corner boards and a skirt board. Mr. Frick commented that if the siding is 3.75” it would look more historic. Ms. McGee asked that they do not mimic historic features too closely since this activity can create a false sense of history. Mr. Shuff suggested using a simple 5/4 inch trim and drop or lap siding instead of bead molding. The applicants questioned if this work could qualify for State Tax Credits. Ms. McGee responded by sharing her thoughts that this level of change would be approved by the state. Mr. Frick moved to approve, for conceptual and final design review, the alteration to the J.M. Glick House, 425 East Laurel Street, finding that the proposed work meets the criteria contained in Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code. Mr. Albright seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. (7-0) OTHER BUSINESS: Mason Corridor BRT Project Update - Denise Weston, Transportation Planner and Kathleen Bracke, Senior Transportation Planner: Ms. Weston gave an update on the environmental process for the Mason Corridor Plan. The alternatives were presented to both SHPO and FTA. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation is not concerned about getting involved a this point. Mitigation measures proposed in the Environmental Assessment include relocation options. Dick Beardmore was hired to evaluate the feasibility of moving the building, and the costs for three scenarios: A – lift the structure up 10 ft and move slightly forward onto new foundation; B – rotate the building and move to the north a few feet on a new foundation; C – relocate the building to a new location at the new south transit center. The cost estimates are for moving the buildings, but include some necessary rehabilitation costs such as tuck pointing. They provide some conceptual numbers for subcontractors. Mr. Frick asked if there was a need for an additional ROW to do the bus station. Ms. Weston answered yes. Ms. McGee asked why the building needed to be moved this far forward. Mr. Beardmore explained that it would need to be moved at least out of the area of the old foundation. Mr. Frick asked about the 6 different proposals or options presented previously. Ms. Weston answered that it was determined by FTA that using any of those six alternatives was not prudent or feasible and that the preferred alternative involves removing the building, either through demolition or relocation. She explained the process. Now that an adverse affect was determined, the Committee questioned how to address the impact to the building, which is the Section 106 part of the process. Mr. Frick asked if it wouldn’t make sense to look at the design options in conjunction with the mitigation measure chosen? Ms. Weston stated that because the process is so clear cut, the Commission needs to make a decision about the mitigation process first. Mr. Frick says that it sounds like the preferred mitigation is to demolish. Ms. Weston says that no, the city is still gathering data to make the decision. Ms. Bracke noted that this is not a 90 million dollar project. It is a 74 million dollar project. Each part of the project has a budget - there is not one big bucket of money to be used for multiple purposes. Mr. Albright asked if the amounts budgeted for the different parts Landmark Preservation Commission April 9, 2008 Meeting Page 6 of 6 could be changed? Ms. Bracke said that it is possible, but that the budget does not have a lot of leeway. The cost estimate for moving the PSCo Building is much more than what was budgeted for this section, and this is why the Committee is in this process of considering all available options. Ms. McGee observed that while there may be this cost for moving the building, there are also sources of funding to rehabilitate the building and that it would generate income for the community. She asserted that it would be unfortunate if this exciting project resulted in the demolition of such a significant historic resource. Ms. Bracke stated that they do not want to demolish the building, but are trying to complete the project in the best and most responsible way possible. Ms. McGee called attention to the fact that once the building is designated on the National Register they could use FTA money (Transportation Enhancement Funds), and, depending on what the end use would be, there could be unlimited additional funding options for rehabilitation and restoration. Could it not be used as a transit station? Ms. Bracke replied that they did not think that in the next 2 months they will determine a use for this building. She agreed that using the building as a transit station is a good idea, but questioned if this design fell within budget constraints. Ms. McGee stated that relocating the building off site is the least desirable option because it would decrease the likelihood of its designation. Ms. Weston told the commission that Transportation will provide a copy of Mr. Beardmore’s study and that once finalized, this PowerPoint presentation, and other materials related to this project will go to Ms. McWilliams. Ms. McGee suggested that Transportation, CSU and CSURF could sit down with members of the commission regarding a next step for this process. The Commission decided to form a sub-committee about this issue to discuss further options and asked staff to look into the legalities of establishing a subcommittee for this purpose. Mr. Frick, Mr. Albright, and Mr. Hoaglund are interested in serving on such a subcommittee. Mr. Albright asked if anyone has ever considered changing the bike path design slightly and using the building. Ms. Weston answered that “yes” it was one of the avoidance alternatives considered, but was determined not feasible. Public Input: The building weighs 226 tons. Ms. Tunner asked how low the building sits, and if it is possible that there was an underpass here once? Ms. McGee says that historic pictures do not appear to show that the railroad grade was that high. Ms. Bracke said that they have done conceptual designs for grade separation where Drake road would go underneath the railroad tracks. The BRT design leaves the railroad right of way just south of Drake Road and uses the existing traffic signal at Drake and McClelland. Maybe there will be an opportunity in the future to put Drake Road underneath the tracks. Ms. McGee reiterated that the next step is for Ms. McWilliams to check and see if we can have a subcommittee. Meeting adjourned at 8:17 p.m. Respectfully submitted by Kara Smith, Secretary