HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 03/12/2008LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
March 12, 2008 Minutes
Council Liaison: David Roy (407-7393)
Staff Liaison: Joe Frank (221-6376)
Commission Chairperson: Alyson McGee
SUMMARY OF MEETING: The Commission held elections; considered 309 East
Locust Street, 313 East Locust Street, 902 Mathews Street, 910 Mathews Street, and
529 South Whitcomb Street for Landmark designation, recommending all but 313 East
Locust to Council for designation; discussed the proposed Downtown Hotel/Conference
Center; considered for Conceptual and Final Design Review work proposed for 215
Whedbee Street and for 1609 Remington Street; conducted a State Tax Credit Part I
review of the Garage at 409-411 Whedbee, and held a Complimentary Review for
proposed alterations to the houses on that property; held a Complimentary Review on
525 Whedbee; and conducted Demolition/Alteration Review Preliminary Hearings for
531 East Laurel and 513 East Oak Streets. Minutes from the October 24, 2007 meeting
were approved; minutes from the November 28 and December 12, 2007 meetings were
approved with corrections.
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Commission called to order by Chairperson
Alyson McGee with a quorum present at 5:30 p.m. at 281 N. College Ave., Fort Collins,
Colorado. Also present were Alan Ballou, Earen Russell, John Albright, Terence Hoaglund,
Bud Frick (arrived at 5:50), and Ian Shuff (arrived at 6:00). Karen McWilliams, Preservation
Planner, and Eric Saulnier and Josh Weinberg, Preservation Interns, represented City Staff.
GUESTS: Anne Aspen, City Planner, Darren Jensen, OZ Architecture, and Chip Steiner,
DDA Director, for the Downtown Hotel.
AGENDA REVIEW: The landmark designation of 320 Locust Street was withdrawn.
STAFF REPORTS: Ms. McWilliams reminded everyone that City Council is
implementing mandatory boards and commission training once per term. Ms. Russell, Mr.
Frick and Mr. Shuff are the only members that have not recently attended this training, and
will attend on March 26.
COMMISSION MEMBER’S REPORTS: Chairperson McGee gave an update on the
State Tax Credits, which, due to state budget shortfalls, are facing opposition in the
legislature this year. She clarified that, even if not passed, the State Tax Credits program is
still in effect until it sunsets.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The October 24th minutes were approved with no changes.
The November 28th and December 12th minutes were approved as corrected.
PUBLIC INPUT: Chairperson McGee asked if anyone present wished to discuss any item
not on the agenda. There were no items.
Landmark Preservation Commission
March 12, 2008 Meeting - 2 -
ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR: Ms. McGee is currently serving as the
Chairperson, and Mr. Shuff as Vice-Chair. Mr. Frick made a motion to continue with the
current chair and vice-chair. Mr. Hoaglund seconded. The motion carried (7-0).
DISCUSSION:
Downtown Hotel and Conference Center:
Anne Aspen, City Planner introduced the project. The developer of the hotel and convention
center is Corporex. The development team includes Darren Jensen, OZ Architecture, Jim
Sell Design, BHA, and Northern Engineering. The project requires a Type II review
(Planning and Zoning Board). Corporex will be going before the P&Z Board on March 20 to
request a modification of two standards, for height and massing. Ms. Aspen will make a
recommendation to the Planning Board for approval of the modifications. A PowerPoint
Presentation was given on the project. Mr. Albright commented that the design of the hotel’s
roof is intrusive and does not blend with the downtown architecture. The gull-wing roof’s
emphasis on drawing the eye upward will make the building look even higher than it will be.
Ms. Aspen responded that the developer has a desire to be bold and wants it to be identifiable.
Mr. Albright noted that 9 stories is pretty identifiable. Ms. McGee suggested that there can
be an architecturally striking building with bold, contemporary design that is still sensitive to
other downtown buildings. There is a concern that this will be setting a precedent for other
downtown buildings to compete with. Mr. Hoaglund asked if it would be LEED? The
Convention Center will be gold LEED. The hotel will certainly strive for LEED recognition.
Mr. Hoaglund said he certainly understands Mr. Albright’s point, but likes the roof. Mr.
Frick commented that LEED designation and identity could both be achieved with a design
more respectful of the area’s historic character. Parking was discussed, and it was noted that
the amount of parking in the area will also be increased as a result of this project. Mr. Frick
discussed the shadow studies in the presentation. He asked how the project proposed to
address the ice in the alley, which will be there for much of the year as a result of the
shadows, and becomes a safety issue. Mr. Jensen agreed that this concern should be
addressed. Ms. McGee asked to see the slide that shows a rendering of the corner element
with diagonal corners. She pointed out that the glass stands out, and creates a dramatically
different aesthetic view from the historic surroundings. Mr. Hoaglund commented that he
liked the shape, but a different material might help. Mr. Frick asked if there would be
vehicular access from College to Remington and the answer was no. The intent is to create a
pedestrian plaza. There will be improvements requested to the surrounding streets for better
traffic fluidity. “Barn Dance” signalization is being studied as a possibility. Ms. McGee
asked about the height variance, and the height study recently completed by the city. She
also expressed concern that maximizing this site’s use appeared to be the goal, rather than its
context. Ms. Aspen explained that the city considers each project on a case by case basis,
and that any requests for variances or modifications would need to be supported on a
project’s own merits, not on what another project (i.e., the hotel) was able to do. Just
because the hotel receives a modification does not establish precedence for any other project.
Mr. Albright stated that the integrity of Historic Old Town and Old Town Square should be
the driver for new architecture in the area. It should not be the other way around. The hotel
Landmark Preservation Commission
March 12, 2008 Meeting - 3 -
should be respectful of its proximity to Historic Old Town. Ms. Russell does want to see a
signature building. Mr. Shuff feels that this is in a transitional area and not next to Old Town
Square, and it should be a signature building, but harmonize, which can be accomplished
through compatible design. Mr. Albright does not like the roofline. Mr. Ballou agreed with
Mr. Albright, and felt the roofline was an issue, as was the glassed, angled corner. Ms.
McGee and Mr. Frick agreed with Mr. Ballou and Mr. Albright. Mr. Jensen stated that their
intent is to respect the historic character of Old Town. He stated that there are two criteria
under the City Code that are being addressed in the request for modification: The
development meets a defined need of the city; and the development, as proposed, is equal to
or better than what would be allowed under the standard.
LANDMARK DESIGNATIONS:
Mr. Saulnier, Preservation Intern, presented. He stated that Staff was recommending
approval for Landmark designation of all of these properties.
309 East Locust Street – Eligible under Standard #3. Minimal Traditional style with
Craftsman elements. Garage was converted to living space, changing garage doors.
Question about current stucco cladding – was it originally siding? 1948 photograph
of shutter details suggests it was historically stucco.
Mr. Shuff made a motion to recommend designation of 309 East Locust Street to
City Council. Ms. Russell seconded the motion. Motion carried (7-0).
313 East Locust Street – Eligible under Standard #3. It has received some
modifications, including the addition of an elevated front porch on the front half of
house, covered by fiberglass awning. The right side window and the siding have also
been changed. The siding now appears to be vinyl. The discussion concluded that
there have been too many modifications made to this property for it to be considered
eligible, affecting its symmetry and proportionality, and ultimately its historic
integrity.
Mr. Shuff moved that the Commission not support the designation of 313 East
Locust Street, based on a lack of integrity due to non-original siding, non-
original windows, and porch and front door having been replaced. The
accumulation of those changes has negatively affected its eligibility. Ms. Russell
seconded the motion. Motion carried (6-1, Mr. Albright opposed.)
902 Mathews Street – Eligible under Standard #3, as an example of the bungalow
variation of Craftsman architecture. The house has many distinctive qualities
characteristic of the style. However, the recent modification of the porch is a concern
as porches are an important design element on Craftsman homes. After discussion, it
was decided that there was sufficient significance and integrity for the property to
qualify as a Landmark.
Mr. Albright moved that it be recommended to the City Council for designation.
Mr. Shuff seconded the motion. Motion carried (7-0).
910 Mathews Street - Eligible under Standard #3, as an example of the bungalow
variation of Craftsman architecture. Only a few changes have been made to this
house and garage.
Landmark Preservation Commission
March 12, 2008 Meeting - 4 -
Mr. Frick made a motion to recommend approval of request for landmark
designation of 910 Mathews Street. Mr. Albright seconded the motion. Motion
carried, (7-0).
529 South Whitcomb Street – Built in 1925, in the Mediterranean/Italian
Renaissance architectural style. The owner is very anxious to recreate the historic
rounded porch. Sanborn maps provide dimensions. The Commission agreed that,
even without the original porch structure, it still has such unique and unusual
architectural features for Fort Collins that it still has architectural significance to our
community. Mr. Frick also pointed out the merits of the historic garage.
Mr. Ballou moved for that we recommend 529 South Whitcomb Street for
landmark designation. Mr. Albright seconded the motion. Motion carried (7-0).
DESIGN REVIEW:
215 Whedbee Street – Conceptual and Final Approval: Chris Reid and Rosemary
Davenport, owners, were present. This property was recently designated as a
landmark, and just received a Landmark Rehabilitation Zero-Interest Loan. This
review is to consider the work proposed for the loan. The applicants were
complimented on the completeness of their submittal information.
Mr. Albright moved that the Commission approve the work as presented. Mr.
Hoaglund seconded the motion. Motion carried (7-0).
1609 Remington Street – Conceptual and Final Approval: Tim Sharkey, owner of
the property was present. The property has recently been landmarked, and just
received a Landmark Rehabilitation Zero-Interest Loan. The Commission asked the
applicant to salvage any historic siding he can, and reuse it. The profile of any new
siding should match the characteristics of the historic siding. The Commission
requested that the homeowner provide a sample of both the historic and new siding to
staff. A door has not yet been chosen. The Commission requested that Mr. Sharkey
work with staff directly on this item. It is requested that the door match the existing
door or one historic to the time period. The applicant was also directed to provide Ms.
McWilliams with the siding and taper-sawn shingles (not shakes) for the roof before
work is carried out. Also, if the replaced door is different from the existing one, the
proposal needs to come back before the Commission for approval.
Ms. Russell moved that the Commission approve the work as amended. Mr.
Hoaglund seconded the motion. Motion carried (7-0).
STATE TAX CREDIT REVIEW:
409-411 Whedbee Street – Carol Tunner made a presentation on behalf of Steve
Mack, owner of the property, who was also present. The dwelling consists of two
joined houses, which functions as a duplex. Mr. Mack is also looking into the Federal
Tax Credit. If he receives the Federal Tax Credit, he would automatically receive the
State Tax Credit. He is asking for approval of the State Tax Credit, because the
Federal board has asked for the local Commission’s recommendation before they
review the application. This State Tax Credit application is for rehabilitation of the
garage. There are large holes in the roof, and the siding needs to be repaired as well
Landmark Preservation Commission
March 12, 2008 Meeting - 5 -
as the chimney. The double garage doors on the front are repairable, but crooked and
cannot be used because the alley has risen over the years and the doors cannot open.
Mr. Mack plans to raise the doors. The chimney may need to be removed with roof
repairs. The garage has a six-pane inoperable window. The back door is not the
original door and it would be replaced with a similar door. Mr. Mack has invested
$8,000.00 thus far in tree removal on the property.
Mr. Shuff moved to approve Part 1 of the State Tax Credit application, as
presented. Mr. Frick seconded the motion. Motion carried, (7-0).
COMPLIMENTARY DESIGN REVIEW:
409-411 Whedbee Street – Carol Tunner and Steve Mack, property owner, discussed
the alterations and repairs that will need to be done on the house. This work will be
submitted as a State Tax Credit project at the Commission’s next meeting. Mr. Mack
pointed out that he will probably have to build a small addition on the rear of one of
the units in order to add a hot water heater; the addition will match the slope of the
gables. Mr. Mack was asked to return with a greater level of detail when he is ready
to apply for State Tax Credit review.
525 Whedbee Street – Michael Elliott, owner of the property was present. He stated
that the house is as it was originally constructed, with 2 exceptions: the garage,
added in 1933 to replace a barn that was torn down; and, in the early 1990’s, the
porch line was extended. The owner is interested in modifying the second floor of the
attached garage and adding a deck and hot tub, to be accessed from a second story
bedroom. It would depend upon if the walls could support the extra weight.
Commission members generally supported the concept of adding a railing, but
requested additional information and details, including height, materials, and a view
from across the street. Mr. Elliott then showed photos of the front porch deck and the
brickwork design in the deck plaster. Mr. Elliott is concerned that this cannot be
repaired. He asked the Commission for suggestions on how to repair it that would
qualify for the financial incentives. Mr. Shuff stated that if the concrete was tooled in
with the brick pattern, it is probable that it could be repaired to maintain the same
appearance. Mr. Elliott also mentioned the garage door on the property. The
functioning mechanism is wearing out. It was suggested that the mechanism be
replaced, but the original door be kept, if possible.
DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW, PRELIMINARY HEARING
531 East Laurel Street – Mike Barna, owner, was present, as well as his contractor,
Steve Joseph, Craftsman Builders. This item was scheduled as a Conceptual Review;
at the request of the property owner, the Commission agreed to consider this item as a
Preliminary Hearing. The applicant is planning a second story addition on this corner
lot property. The property’s eligibility was recently reviewed under the City’s
demolition/alteration review process, and it was found to be individually eligible for
Landmark designation. All significant exterior alterations are at least 50 years old,
the building has good integrity, and it has architectural significance for its unique
construction. A second “granny flat” unit was added to the property in 1951,
connected to the first by means of a breezeway. Mr. Frick stated that based on the
Landmark Preservation Commission
March 12, 2008 Meeting - 6 -
changes that were made early on, it should be individually eligible. The proposed
changes would make it ineligible. The rest of the Commission agreed. Mr. Barna
discussed his plans. His proposal would be to add 3 bedrooms and a bathroom
upstairs. The granny flat is attached to the house, and they have thought of tearing it
down and putting the addition back there, but that would not be their preference, as
the granny flat is currently a rental and they would lose that income. Mr. Frick
suggested that it is a nice, unique looking corner house as it stands now and adding a
second story would not retain enough of the building’s significance and integrity.
Since a solution that could retain the building’s eligibility was not agreed upon, Mr.
Barna will submit with his plans for building review and document the home in
preparation for the Final Hearing.
DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW, PRELIMINARY HEARING
513 East Oak Street – Mr. Shawn Windsor, owner, was in attendance. The building
is very old, likely circa 1880s. It has very good integrity and high architectural
significance, and was determined to be individually eligible. It is designated on the
National and State Registers as a contributing element of the Laurel School National
Register District. Mr. Windsor reviewed his plans. He is planning a rear addition
attached with a 9-foot connector. The addition would be approximately 5 feet higher
than the original home. Mr. Shuff suggested that the dormer be downplayed a bit,
and Mr. Windsor stated that it may be difficult to get it any lower. Mr. Frick
suggested that the eve height be consistent, if possible, and if the dormer roof could
be lowered, that would also help. These modifications are possible if the building
were made wider. Mr. Windsor discussed set backs. Ms. McGee discussed the
window detailing and triangular window treatment shown on the rendering; Mr.
Windsor stated he agreed this was too much. Mr. Hoaglund discussed using a hipped
dormer. Other suggestions were to reduce the plate height as much as possible; lower
the dormer and make the windows slightly smaller; and continue the roof across the
dormer.
Mr. Shuff moved to approve the presented addition to 513 East Oak with the
comments discussed per the scale of dormer, roof to extend across the dormer
and less ornamentation in the gable of the dormer. Motion seconded by Mr.
Albright. Motion carried (7-0).
OTHER BUSINESS:
Ms. McWilliams reported the Fort Collins did receive a CLG grant to send one
person to the National Alliance of Preservation Commissions Forum, July 10-13,
2008 in New Orleans. Several Commission members expressed interest in attending.
Meeting is adjourned at 9:10 PM.
Respectfully submitted by
Amy Garcia, Secretary