Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 08/13/2008LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting August 13, 2008 Minutes Council Liaison: David Roy (407-7393) Staff Liaison: Mr. Joe Frank (221-6376) Commission Chairperson: Ms. Earen Russell SUMMARY OF MEETING: July 23, 2008 minutes were approved with corrections. The Commission held the Final Review for an addition to 128 North Sherwood Street, and approved the plans. The Commission discussed Councilmember’s comments from Council’s Period Review of the LPC, and Ms. Russell discussed her meeting with the City Manager. The Commission heard an update on the Public Service Company Building Memorandum of Agreement. 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. Also present were John Albright, Terence Hoaglund, Alan Ballou, Ian Shuff, Sondra Carson and Bud Frick. Joe Frank, Senior City Planner; Karen McWilliams, Preservation Planner; and Alyson McGee, Preservation Planner represented City Staff. GUESTS: Jan Krucky and Rick Newman, 128 North Sherwood. AGENDA REVIEW: The Addition to Part I, State Tax Credit Review, for 409-411 Whedbee Street was postponed. STAFF REPORTS: Ms. McWilliams drew attention to the letter in the packet from Ed Siegel thanking the Commission for the Friends of Preservation award, and noting the help of Carol Tunner. COMMISSION MEMBER’S REPORTS: None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:  July 23 2008 Minutes – Approved with corrections per motion: Mr. Hoaglund made a motion to correct the minutes to clarify his report from the DDA Meeting on July 10th by removing the second and third sentences. Mr. Shuff seconded the motion. The motion carried (6-0). PUBLIC INPUT: Chairperson Russell asked if anyone present wished to discuss any item not on the agenda. There were none. DESIGN REVIEW:  Final Review of Addition to House at 128 North Sherwood – Jan Krucky, Owner Ms. McGee reviewed the background of the property. Mr. Krucky is proposing an addition to the rear of the designated home, and demolition of the non-designated shed structure at the rear of the property. Mr. Krucky has revised the design for the addition at the rear of residence following the Conceptual Review comments from the LPC on July 23, 2008. The Landmark Preservation Commission August 13, 2008 Meeting - 2 - revised design for the addition includes a narrow connector between the original house and a new 14’0” x 15’0” bedroom addition. The connector will attach to the existing shed-roofed rear addition, and he believes it will have minimal impact on historic materials or features. Staff recommended approval of the design of the addition to the house as it meets Standard #9 of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Mr. Hoaglund likes the design. Mr. Shuff said the resolution is cleaner. Rick Newman, contractor, said this design is easier to construct. Ms. Russell said she really appreciated all the work done in designing the addition. Mr. Krucky said he really appreciated all the feedback and it made the project easier. A PowerPoint presentation of the revised design was provided by Mr. Krucky. Mr. Krucky stated he was focused on three views: courtyard, back yard and kitchen and that this design was the least impactful to the original house. Mr. Hoaglund said this is a subtle roof and cannot be readily seen from the front. Mr. Albright asked why the bedroom structure is shown with a curved roof. Mr. Krucky tried designs with a 9’12’ gable and with a hip roof, and they were really visible from the sidewalk, while this design can’t be seen from the front or the alley. Public input: None. Mr. Hoaglund made a motion to approve the proposed addition for 128 North Sherwood Street as it meets Standard #9 of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, which states, “New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.” Mr. Shuff seconded the motion. The motion carried (4-2). Mr. Krucky thanked the Landmark Preservation Commission and appreciated the feedback. OTHER BUSINESS:  Update on City Council Periodic Review of LPC Ms. McGee discussed the draft document responding to the City Council Periodic Review of the Landmark Preservation Commission. Per Item 1: Council Liaison David Roy invited the Commission to contact him when needed. Staff recommended a quarterly on line newsletter, to provide outreach to council members and the public. Ms. Russell commented that Mr. Roy had told her he likely wouldn’t have the time to read it, but for Commission members to call him personally if there are issues. Mr. Albright felt the public would likely read it. Ms. McGee stated that, as an example, an article could be an update about properties that have been designated in the prior three or four months, or discuss various issues that come up. Mr. Shuff said that the last time a Council Liaison came to a meeting was three or four years ago. He believes that the City Charter states they weren’t to attend all the meetings, just one or two a year. Mr. Frank said Mr. Roy prefers to sit down and talk when an issue comes up, but that there really haven’t been any issues to discuss. Ms. Russell likes the public forum newsletter. Per Item 2: Council would like the opinion of LPC on the impact of “pop-up and scrape- offs” in the community. Ms. McGee said the Advance Planning staff is working on a proposal to survey this issue within the Westside and Eastside neighborhoods. Mr. Frank commented that one council person specifically asked about scrape offs, and asked if this was an issue. Cameron Gloss wrote the attached memo in response to City Council concern. Mr. Frank commented that while staff is seeing trends, staff is reluctant to label it as a big Landmark Preservation Commission August 13, 2008 Meeting - 3 - issue, that they are waiting for citizens to go to council and express their concerns about what the issues are, i.e., pop-ups, design, tearing down the historic, etc. City staff is proposing a public opinion survey, however, such a survey is not in the department’s current budget. Ms. McGee stated that she and Ms. McWilliams will be conducting a “windshield survey” of the Westside and Eastside neighborhoods, to assess the number of properties that have been significantly altered. Mr. Frick asked if pictures have been taken in these neighborhoods in the past. Ms. McWilliams said they had at various times, and this will help determine the level of change in some neighborhoods. Ms. McGee stressed that the survey would be a cursory assessment. Ms. McWilliams felt the focus is not to say “x” number of individual homes have changed, but to determine if the character of the neighborhoods had altered. She reported that the building department had implemented a system to better track demolitions. Per Item 3: Council is interested in reinstating the LPC’s “design review subcommittee,” but wants more information on the pros and cons of such a committee. To reinstate the subcommittee would require a change to code. Mr. Shuff commented that council responded positively to the suggestion to reinstate the subcommittee. Ms. McWilliams felt the complimentary design review option was a truly good process, and noted that the reason it was dissolved was that the city attorney determined out that such a subcommittee is not one of the code recognized duties for LPC and that the commission members could have taken on liability. Mr. Shuff remarked that the LPC was very upfront with property owners that the review by a subcommittee did not constitute formal approval. Mr. Albright agreed. Ms. McGee suggested a potential committee makeup consisting of two LPC members and one staff. Mr. Albright wants the LPC architects to do it. Ms. McGee agreed it would be good to have at least one architect available for each session. Per Item 4: Council is interested in increasing the funding for the City’s Zero Interest Loans program but wants more information. Mr. Albright asked how the program is funded now. The program receives $25,000 each year from the general fund. Ms. McWilliams stated that the grant received from the State Historical Fund for commercial rehab projects was a separate program, and that future funding from SHF was unlikely. The City’s Budgeting for Outcomes funding process is coming up in 2009, with the potential for an increase in City funding.  Ms. Russell discussed meeting with City Manger, Darin Atteberry. Mr. Atteberry wanted to discuss some of the controversy about mid-century modern properties, such as the Police Services Building. Ms. Russell explained to him that the determination of eligibility was a carefully thought out process. Mr. Atteberry also related his concern about high profile members of the community getting a courtesy review from LPC and feeling they were not treated considerately. The representatives of 252 Mountain felt attacked and defensive about the courtesy review. Mr. Shuff said LPC should hold to meeting professional standards. Mr. Frank reminded the LPC members to watch their comments, but noted that the Planning and Zoning Board and DDA have the same issues. Mr. Frank suggested that LPC state upfront how it applies city codes, and consider how to get the point across in a courteous manner. Mr. Albright was confused because he felt the meeting had been quite professional. He has had extensive experience serving on various state and national boards, and felt the LPC was invariably courteous. Ms. Russell commented that after reading the minutes, it was the public’s comments that were getting personal and emotional, not LPC members’. Ms. Russell said Mr. Atteberry just wanted to make contact because some of Landmark Preservation Commission August 13, 2008 Meeting - 4 - these projects are going to be very public and political. Mr. Frank reported that there had been interest by a developer to purchase the Police Services Building. Their options had been explained to them, given the eligibility of the building. The potential developer has pulled out of the project. Mr. Albright asked about the police building’s history. Ms. McGee explained its architectural and historical significance, and noted that it was also designed by William Robb, a prominent local architect. Mr. Frank suggested the LPC review information about the building, because this will be coming up. Ms. Russell believes it will become controversial. Ms McWilliams informed LPC that staff has received a signed contract from the State Historical Fund on July 29, 2008 to conduct the survey of mid-century buildings, including the police services building, and they are revising deadlines with the consultants.  Update of status of Public Services Company Building MOA Per LPC members’ requests for clarification from the July 23, 2008 meeting, Ms. McGee clarified that the property is owned by Colorado State University Research Foundation and they do not have to be a party to this agreement. Ms. McWilliams commented that the agreement is between consulting parties only, in this case the City, the Federal Transportation Authority, the State Historic Preservation Office, Carol Tunner and the Fort Collins Historical Society. Documentation will consist of measured drawings per the Historic American Building Survey standards. In relation to the time frame for developing and construction interpretative materials, “undertaking” means removal of the building. At this time, the MOA has been signed by the Federal Transportation Authority and State Historic Preservation Officer. It is currently at the City Manager’s office. Ms. McWilliams will then bring the MOA to Mr. Albright for his signature, as the LPC’s designated representative in this process. Ms. McWilliams reported that Denise Weston greatly appreciated all of LPC’s comments and assistance throughout the process.  Mr. Frick informed LPC of the name of the alley containing his project: Montezuma Fuller Court.  Mr. Frank asked if all LPC members had received invitations to the DDA open house on September 3 related to improvements within downtown alleys including paving, signage, rear access to commercial spaces, etc.  Mr. Albright asked if the hotel is still being planned for Remington Street. Mr. Frank reported he had attended a recent meeting regarding the financial agreement and that plans are moving forward. Mr. Albright asked about the future of the Elks Club building. Mr. Frank replied the DDA will purchase and deconstruct the building. The site will then have one level of underground parking and 60 surface parking spaces, until the conference center is built on the site. Mr. Frank clarified that the DDA currently has no funding for the conference center. Meeting is adjourned at 6:32 PM. Respectfully submitted by Diana Sanger, Secretary