Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 08/13/2014Landmark Preservation Commission Page 1 August 13, 2014 Ron Sladek, Chair Doug Ernest, Vice Chair City Council Chambers Maren Bzdek City Hall West Meg Dunn 300 Laporte Avenue Kristin Gensmer Fort Collins, Colorado Dave Lingle Pat Tvede Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14 Alexandra Wallace on the Comcast cable system Belinda Zink Laurie Kadrich Karen McWilliams Josh Weinberg Gino Campana Staff Liaison, CDNS Director Preservation Planner Preservation Planner Council Liaison The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. Regular Meeting August 13, 2014 Minutes  CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Chair Sladek.  ROLL CALL PRESENT: Tvede, Gensmer, Zink, Lingle, Ernest, Bzdek, Dunn, Sladek ABSENT: Wallace (excused) STAFF: Preservation Planners McWilliams and Weinberg, and Administrative Staff Schiager  PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None  DISCUSSION AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 14, 2014 REGULAR MEETING. This item will be approved at the next regular meeting due to a voting technicality. Time Reference: 5:35 p.m. Landmark Preservation Commission Approved by Commission at their September 10, 2014 meeting. City of Fort Collins Page 2 2. OLD TOWN YOGA, 237- 243 JEFFERSON STREET – CONCEPTUAL REVIEW OF PAINT COLORS APPLICANT: Chris Bates, Mighty Fine Art OWNER: Jake Van Vonderen, Old Town Yoga; Wally Walberg, property owner Staff Report Ms. McWilliams presented the staff report with details about the project. Paint samples were passed around to the Commission Members. Applicant Presentation Mr. Bates spoke on behalf of the business owners who hired him to paint the exterior of the building to brighten up the store. He said the colors they are looking at seem to be in line with what is already in the area, noting that the tattoo parlor down the street is painted with bright yellows and purples. He said they are under the impression that they could pick colors that weren’t necessarily in the “historic range” as long as they gained approval. They are willing to abide by whatever the Commission suggests. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion Chair Sladek stated that this Conceptual Review is an opportunity for the Commission to provide feedback on these colors. A Member commented that while the colors seem a little bit brighter than what she has seen in her research, she approves of the colors and pointed out that paint is temporary. Chair Sladek clarified that generally, the Commission would not like to see any stone, masonry or other items painted, only the woodwork. Members asked how close the proposed colors are to the historic palette for Victorian style. Ms. McWilliams responded that this is difficult to define and that it is easier to find information on colors for houses than for commercial properties. Members asked about whether Staff believed the proposed colors were not historically accurate for the era. Ms. McWilliams responded that when the code was passed regarding paint colors, it was determined that Staff could approve paint colors that were found in the approved historic palettes. Certain palettes had been gathered by previous Staff from paint companies that were mostly residential. Most of the color palettes just show paint throughout the ages, without specifying a particular era. These particular colors do not show up in those palettes, so the decision falls to the Commission. The Members pointed out that when palettes are being created by paint companies, they are not necessarily historically accurate. A Member asked whether the neighbors had been approached about the colors. Mr. Bates responded that the business owner intends to do that, but hadn’t gotten that far yet. He also commented that he had tried to research historic colors, but didn’t find much information. Members discussed the preservation guidelines regarding color, which focus on whether the colors highlight the historic appearance and are appropriate to the period. The guidelines advocate the use of simple colors with one to three accent colors, and suggest obtaining professional advice for preparing surfaces. Members pointed out that their personal preferences are irrelevant as long as the proposal doesn’t violate any of the standards. Some Members expressed concern about differentiating between the two buildings. They questioned whether it was appropriate for the two buildings to share the same palette. Another Member commented that there wasn’t a rationale for that in the guidelines. Other Members noted that since they had no information on the colors of the buildings historically, perhaps differentiating between them wasn’t important. Commission Feedback While none of the Members objected to the palette, some Members would like to see differentiation between the buildings, possibly just a reversal of the base and trim colors. Members asked Staff whether the Applicant would be back with a final design, and Ms. McWilliams clarified that the Commission has the option of having the final design approved administratively. Members indicated that they are comfortable with an administrative decision. City of Fort Collins Page 3 Time Reference: 6:03 p.m. 3. DESIGN ASSISTANCE PROGRAM APPLICATION - HEIDI SHUFF OF STUDIO S ARCHITECTURE, LLC APPLICANT: Heidi Shuff, Studio S Architecture, LLC Mr. Lingle recused himself from this item due to a conflict. Staff Report Mr. Weinberg provided the staff report, including background on the Design Assistance Program and the associated guidelines. Applicant Presentation Ms. Shuff said that she is a licensed architect in Colorado. She has focused on residential projects, largely Eastside and Westside historic homes. She stated that she wants to help owners make historic homes more usable by today’s standards. She referred the Commission to her credentials, application and sample projects provided in the packet. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion A Member inquired about the Applicant’s experience with historic reconstruction. Ms. Shuff replied that her focus has been more on rehabilitation and adapting properties to current needs, not reconstruction or preservation. She said that she helps clients with sensitive additions and repurposing spaces, while tying into the historic fabric of the neighborhood. Members asked about her project with the house on Oak Street, which she stated was new construction and that she assisted with that design. Members inquired about Ms. Shuff’s familiarity with the Secretary of Interior Standards, and preservation principles. Ms. Shuff said she is very familiar with the standards, and is comfortable using the available resources. She also stated that her husband was on the Landmark Preservation Commission for many years and has been on the approved list of designers for a long time, so preservation is a frequent topic of conversation in their home and daily life. Several Members expressed that they were comfortable with the Applicant’s level of expertise. Commission Deliberation Ms. Tvede moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission find that Heidi Shuff meets the criteria established by the Commission for the Design Assistance Program for consultants under Items 1 & 2. Examples of compliance with the Secretary of Interior Standards for the treatment of historic buildings are included in the specifics of two professional qualifications, a specific example of which is 529 Sycamore Avenue. Ms. Gensmer seconded. The motion passed 7-0. Mr. Lingle returned to the meeting. Time Reference: 6:19 p.m. 4. 227 AND 231 SOUTH HOWES CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW Stephan Slezak, Property Owner, Amshel Corporation Staff Report Mr. Weinberg provided the staff report, including an overview of the proposed project, the location, and the process. He said that on this item, the Commission has the ability to make a recommendation to the decision maker on a development project. Applicant Presentation Mr. Slezak explained that with the proposed design they are trying to fit into the neighborhood. He said this is a Craftsman style home similar to 223 South Howes. He purchased the 231 property in 1998 and had conceptualized doing something with the Shingle Style garage, which was used for storage at one time, but is now in disrepair. Part of the conceptual design incorporates some of the City of Fort Collins Page 4 Shingle Style architecture in the gables and column bases. They would like to move forward with a design that complements the area. They are considering a breakfast and lunch restaurant on the main level, with possible offices or residential space on the second floor. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion In response to a Commission question, Mr. Weinberg clarified that only the building is landmarked, not the land itself. Members also obtained clarification from Staff that they are not discussing whether the property should be divided, but only looking at the style and size of the design. Members inquired as to the design of the buildings on the other sides. Mr. Weinberg stated that the designated house next to the property is Italianate architecture. He said he believed the other one on Olive Street is a single-story Victorian cottage with a front porch. Members asked whether the eligibility had been determined for the Olive Street house, and Mr. Weinberg said he would have to find out. The Applicant stated there were two designated buildings in that triangle area, 231 and 223, both of which are two-story. Three of the non-designated buildings are one-story, and the Cortina is six stories. Members asked whether the existing landscaping was something they need to discuss, and whether that landscaping was historic or mature. The Applicant said the street trees are large Ash trees that belong to the city, and will remain. The Ash tree at 231 is staying. The rest of the current landscaping was installed within the past ten years by the Applicant, and other than a row of hedges, most of it will stay. Members discussed access to the garage, and the Applicant said would be from Canyon. Members asked whether the garage was intended to complement house in terms of style, and the Applicant said that it was. Members asked how the Applicant decided on Craftsman style for this property. The Applicant described having seen a similar house in Salem, Oregon that was stunning, and thought it would look nice in that location. Also, the building at 223 South Howes is Craftsman. Chair Sladek asked the Commission if they had any thoughts on how this development would impact other buildings in the area that are designated or eligible. Since the eligibility of the Olive Street house was not known, Mr. Weinberg asked whether the Commission could discuss it hypothetically, if that would impact the decision. Members asked Senior City Planner, Pete Wray, whether the footprint and magnitude of the proposal would be an obstacle to this development, in terms of FAR (Floor Area Ratio) standards or other concerns. Mr. Wray said at this very early stage in the process, Staff had just asked general questions, although it was determined that adding a residential component above the garage would be an addition of a permitted use. Members asked Mr. Weinberg to show the Google Street View of the neighboring property on Olive Street, which he did. Members commented that it was a smaller building than the others and asked about the distance between it and the proposed building. The Applicant said there would be 10 feet between the buildings. Members asked about the height of the building, and Mr. Weinberg stated it was about 20 feet, but would possibly be raised a few feet to complement neighboring buildings. Members mentioned a recurring concern about new construction dominating surrounding buildings. One Member felt that Craftsman style would stick out, and that the Victorian style would be a better fit with the properties on either side, referring to LUC 3.4.7, Paragraph 2, which states that new structures shall be designed to be in character with existing historic structures. Craftsman is a couple of decades later than Victorian. Another Member pointed out that there are other examples of multiple styles on same blocks, and that the bigger concern is the scale of it, in context with the house on Olive Street, if that were eligible. Another Member indicated that building material compatibility was a greater concern than size, with brick being predominant in other buildings in the area. City of Fort Collins Page 5 Chair Sladek asked Staff for some direction on the process. Mr. Weinberg said that at this point it’s just a Conceptual Review, so the Commission should provide as much feedback as possible to the Applicant about how the project relates to the Code, and then it will come back to the Commission at some point for another Conceptual or Final Review. Mr. Wray stated that there would be a Type II review with the Planning and Zoning Board for this development, and that the Commission’s comments would be forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Board, who would be the decision maker. There would also be two neighborhood meetings associated with this development before the application is submitted for the project development plan, followed by additional rounds of review. Members expressed that they would like to see the project as another Conceptual Review, and would not be comfortable seeing it as a Conceptual and Final Review on the same agenda. Regarding any adverse effect to the existing landmarked property, Members commented that the garages served a purpose on the sites and removing those changes the landscape of the site. Even though the actual demolition of the garages isn’t under review, the concern is more about the garage relative to the house and the site as a whole. Chair Sladek agreed, and noted that he had felt uncomfortable making an administrative decision on eligibility solely about the garages. The way the current Code is written, the eligibility of the garages had to be considered individually, and not with regard to the impact on the entire property. He said that because the garages are not individually eligible, the discussion before the Commission is not one of whether or not the garages should stay. The real issue before them is whether or not the proposed new building would have an adverse effect on the surrounding landmarked or eligible properties. Members suggested that the Applicant could perhaps minimize the impact on the smaller house with a setback, taking care not to encroach upon the properties to the east, as there appears to be plenty of space with which to work. The Applicant asked to respond to the comments. He said that the Commission had discussed keeping the landscaping, and then talked about wiping out the landscaping to allow a bigger buffer between 316 West Olive and the proposed new building. The entire north area behind 316 is paved, the entire side yard is paved, and the only landscaping between the properties is what he put in. He said the objective for the Downtown plan is to maximize land use, and a side yard setback doesn’t maximize land use. When talking about compatibility and massing, the Code says massing can be mitigated through articulation. He pointed out that they have balconies and porches and other design features on the project. He feels this is a simple project, and a sensitive footprint. He said that neighbors have commented that the garages are an eyesore, and he is tearing them down to add value to the Downtown area. He pointed out that he served on the Downtown Development Authority for eight years, was Chairman for four years, has a huge vested interest in the Downtown community, and has a good handle on historic preservation, having won the Friends of Preservation award in the past. He said having so much angst over such a simple project is very upsetting to him. Chair Sladek thanked the Applicant for his comments and said that the Commission will be happy to take another look at the project again as it proceeds, and after they have had some time to think about what has been presented. Time Reference: 7:06 p.m. 5. 412 WOOD STREET LANDMARK DESIGNATION Mary Barraza, Property Owner Staff Report Ms. McWilliams provided the staff report. Applicant Presentation None Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion Chair Sladek noted that the property is referred to as the Crane Property in one place in the Staff Report. Mr. Weinberg said that was an error and should be the Barraza Property. City of Fort Collins Page 6 One Member pointed out that there is a newer application form since this application was initiated. Ms. McWilliams said they be using the new form going forward, and for this one, would make the changes to the form and have it re-signed by the owner. Members discussed how the name of an historic building is determined. Mr. Weinberg said they are typically named after the owner who is applying, although it is somewhat arbitrary. Sometimes the property might be named after the most prominent historic person who lived there; sometimes the owner has a name in mind; or sometimes the address itself can be the name. Members inquired about why the property wasn’t also nominated under Standard A. The staff report references a pattern of events in the city, and development of housing for working class people. Members said they would like to see a change to the application to check the box for Standard A as well, and add a little language about that. Commission Deliberation Ms. Tvede moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend that City Council pass an ordinance designating the Barraza Property at 412 Wood Street a Fort Collins Landmark according to City Code Chapter 14, under designation Standards C and A. Ms. Bzdek seconded. Motion passed 8-0. Time Reference: 7:23 p.m. 6. HENRY JESSUP/CAL JOHNSON FARM BUILDINGS, 2902 RIGDEN PARKWAY CONCEPTUAL AND FINAL DESIGN REVIEW – CHANGE ROOFING MATERIAL AND PAINT COLORS Mike & Jeri Schwab, Manager, Rigden Farm Master Homeowners Association Staff Report Ms. McWilliams presented the staff report. Applicant Presentation Ms. Schwab addressed the Commission on behalf of the Homeowners Association. She said that following the recent hail storm, the insurance company determined that the roofs needed 100% replacement, and the paint was at about 70%, so they are seeking to repaint and reroof all five structures. The roofs on the house, garage and bunkhouse are currently in wood shake shingles, and the barn and chicken coop are in composite shingles. The home has been in that location for about 14 years, and has had those materials for at least that long, but they are unsure when the changes were made to the barn and chicken coop. The Homeowners Association is interested in gaining uniformity by roofing all five structures in the same material. They have looked at a fire retardant wood shake and also an impact resistant composite shingle. Their preference is the impact resistant shingle. They have chosen a Classic Heritage color called Weathered Wood which they believe maintains the historic character of the buildings. It has a nice fire safety rating, and also has an impact resistance that will help it stand up well to hail. The impact resistant shingles are $29,710 to replace all buildings, and the fire retardant wood shake is $52,883, so there is a significant price difference. In terms of the painting, they have chosen a slightly different color of beige without quite as much taupe in it. They have chosen a deep burgundy from Benjamin Moore’s historical collection as an accent color to be used minimally around the facings of the doors, windows and trim, but not the eaves. Ms. Schwab passed a sample of the roofing and paint colors to the Commission. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion One Member pointed out that the staff report stated that these buildings were white, but they are actually beige in the photos. The Applicant said they were currently beige, but were white at one time long ago. City of Fort Collins Page 7 Members asked for clarification about whether the shingles were all the same wood shingles, historically, which Ms. McWilliams confirmed. She said that the information they have in the office is that currently the wood roofs are wood shingles, not wood shake shingle, and the others are composite. Members discussed whether the change in colors and materials would impact the integrity of the buildings and their significance as landmarked structures. They discussed the pros and cons of using wood roofs in Colorado, including the fact that insurance requires that wood roofs be fire retardant. One Member noted that many jurisdictions have outlawed wood shingles over the last 20 years, and that even the State Historic Fund had made exceptions with regard to grants in those cases. Members confirmed with the Applicant that the ball caps and finials on the roofs would be preserved, noting that would be important. Members and Staff discussed that the barn and chicken coop would likely have originally been wood shingle as well, based on the best estimate of when they were constructed. When discussing the colors, Members agreed that the color choices were fine. Some Members stated a strong preference for wood shingles on all of the structures, based on Standard 2, citing distinctive materials. Others said that while they preferred wood, the cost differential and practical considerations might influence their opinion. Some Members felt that composite shingles were acceptable. There was some discussion about the idea that the house and barn were the signature buildings, and that perhaps those roofs could be replaced with wood shingles, and use composite for the other buildings. Ms. McWilliams confirmed that at the time the buildings were designated, at least two of the five buildings did not have wood shingles. The Applicant said the HOA Board wanted uniformity. Members pointed out that since this is not a restoration project, it doesn’t make sense to require the Applicant to upgrade materials. One Member commented that the reason there are financial incentives available is to do upgrades like this. The Applicant said one of the main financial incentives is a tax credit, but the HOA is a non- profit, so they would not benefit from that. Commission Deliberation Members agreed to break this item into two motions, one for color and one for the roofing. Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve, on Conceptual and Final Design Review, the use of Philadelphia Cream (HC-30) for the body, and Hadley Red (HC-65) for trim, for the five buildings at the Henry Jessup / Cal Johnson Farm at 2902 Rigden Parkway under applicable Code sections 14-48 and Secretary of Interior Standards for rehabilitations, finding that they meet the standards. Ms. Gensmer seconded. Motion passed 8-0. Ms. Tvede moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend that the Ridgen Farm repairs use all wood shingles on all buildings on the farm under Alteration Code 14-48, Secretary of Interior Standards 5 & 9. Ms. Dunn seconded. Motion failed 2-6 with Gensmer, Zink, Lingle, Ernest, Bzdek and Sladek opposed. Members discussed the application of Standard 6 with regard to matching the old materials, but noted that they would have to be able to document what the original materials were. Members asked to clarify what the original roofing materials were. Ms. McWilliams said we know that currently three of the buildings have wood, and the other two have asphalt, but we don’t know for a fact what the original was. Members asked the Applicant whether the insurance company was willing to fund wood roofs. The Applicant answered that insurance would cover $30,739, leaving them short by just over $22,000. The current wood shingle material cannot be replaced, as it is not insurable at all. Chair Sladek suggested that the HOA could take up the issue with their insurance company, particularly if the City was requiring them to use wood. A Member asked what the Commission wanted to achieve, whether it was restoring the historic appearance back to the original materials, the current materials, or something else. Members discussed that this is not a restoration project, but rather a stabilization project. Some expressed that it would be unfair to ask the Applicant to use wood on the barn and outbuildings. City of Fort Collins Page 8 Ms. Dunn moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the replacement of damaged wood shingles on the farmhouse, garden shed and garage with fireproof wood shingles, and replace the damaged composite shingles on the on the chicken coop and barn with the Heritage IR shingles. No second. Motion failed. Ms. Zink moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve, on Conceptual and Final Design Review, the installation of impact resistant asphalt shingles on all five structures on the Rigden Farms complex, retaining the ball finials and ridge caps. Ms. Bzdek seconded. Motion passed 6-2 with Tvede and Dunn dissenting. Time Reference: 8:06 p.m. 7. DISCUSSION: NAMING OF COY-HOFFMAN OPEN SPACE Staff Report None Commission Questions and Discussion Chair Sladek introduced the discussion. Members discussed what names were being considered by Council. It was mentioned that some Councilmembers had objected to the name “Coy-Hoffman”, feeling that using an individual’s name might imply that the individual donated the land to the City. Members suggested that adding the word “Farm” to the name should alleviate that objection. The name “Winding Rivers” was also among the names being considered by Council. Also being considered was a name referencing an Arapaho name or word. Members noted that using a Native American term should not be done without consulting the appropriate tribe. The Coy-Hoffman Farm or Coy Farm names were initially mentioned as preferences. One Member suggested using “Homestead” rather than “Farm” in the name, pointing out that it was one of the first settlements in the area. Other Members concurred with the use of “Homestead”. Members discussed several strong arguments for the Coy-Hoffman Homestead name idea, first from a geographic standpoint with its proximity to the river and to Downtown; also honoring an important founding family of our city, the pioneers that settled the land, and the farm that supplied Camp Collins; and to recognize some of the lost historic structures. There was additional discussion about what the word “homestead” implies, and Members noted that we have many designations of farms, but not many that recognize homesteads. A comment was also made that if the name includes “Homestead”, it would need to be the “Coy Homestead”, since the Coy family settled here first. The name Coy-Hoffman Farm would also be appropriate. Commission Deliberation Ms. Dunn moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to Council the name of either “The Coy Homestead Natural Area” or “The Coy-Hoffman Farm Natural Area”. Ms. Bzdek seconded. Motion passed 8-0. Chair Sladek said he would include the arguments suggested by the Commission in his letter to City Council, and should be able to write the letter the following day in order to submit it to Council for consideration at their September 19th meeting.  OTHER BUSINESS None  ADJOURNMENT Chair Sladek adjourned the meeting at 8:30 p.m.