Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 02/15/2017City of Fort Collins Page 1 February 15, 2017 Meg Dunn, Chair City Council Chambers Per Hogestad, Vice Chair City Hall West Doug Ernest 300 Laporte Avenue Bud Frick Fort Collins, Colorado Kristin Gensmer Dave Lingle Mollie Simpson Alexandra Wallace Belinda Zink 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. Video of the meeting will be broadcast at 1:30 p.m. the following day through the Comcast cable system on Channel 14 or 881 (HD). Please visit http://www.fcgov.com/fctv/ for the daily cable schedule. The video will also be available for later viewing on demand here: http://www.fcgov.com/fctv/video-archive.php. Regular Meeting February 15, 2017 Minutes • CALL TO ORDER Acting Chair Ernest called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. • ROLL CALL PRESENT: Dunn, Zink, Hogestad, Wallace, Lingle, Ernest, Frick, Simpson ABSENT: Gensmer STAFF: McWilliams, Bzdek, Yatabe, Schiager • STAFF REPORTS Ms. Bzdek informed the Commission about the release of the new economic benefits study. The report, “Preservation for a Changing Colorado” was prepared by Clarion Associates. Ms. Bzdek noted that two Fort Collins case studies were included in the report, the Old Town Historic District and the Northern Hotel. The report can be accessed by clicking on the “Popular Report” button at www.preservationbenefitscolorado.com. She encouraged the Commission and members of the public to explore the site. Landmark Preservation Commission City of Fort Collins Page 2 February 15, 2017 Ms. McWilliams provided an update on the status of the Historic Preservation code and process review project. The RFP has been issued and closes on the 24th, and the firm will be selected by a committee. An early March kick-off meeting is scheduled, and the project will be fast-tracked. She noted that Meg Dunn was invited to join the committee, which will also include a Planning and Zoning Board member, members of the development community, home owners and others. Ms. McWilliams also updated the Commission on the Alta Vista survey project. She explained that the City has partnered with Dr. Sara Payne’s historic preservation class at CSU to conduct the survey, which is now underway. Brochures have recently been mailed to all of the property owners, and an initial public meeting was held to provide information about the project. Most properties will be surveyed from the public rights-of-way, but all sides of the buildings will be surveyed for those properties whose owners have granted permission. Dr. Payne and her students are expected to provide a report to the Commission at the April 19th meeting. Acting Chair Ernest thanked Staff for the reports, adding that he was pleased to hear Ms. Dunn would be participating in the code committee, and that the Alta Vista survey was moving forward. • AGENDA REVIEW Agenda Item #3 has been moved to follow Item #5. • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. • DISCUSSION AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 18, 2017 REGULAR MEETING. Ms. Dunn moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the minutes of January 18, 2017. Ms. Zink seconded. The motion passed 8:0. 2. INTRODUCTION TO THE LANDMARK REHABILITATION LOAN PROGRAM Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report. She explained the program, the loan process, and the role of the LPC. She also reviewed code section 14-48 and the criteria by which the applications should be evaluated. Commission Questions and Discussion Acting Chair Ernest reviewed the order of proceedings for the forthcoming design reviews. [Secretary’s Note: Item #3 was moved to follow item #5.] 4. 525 SMITH STREET (THE GEORGE W. COFFIN HOUSE PROPERTY) - CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for design review of The George W. Coffin House Property at 525 Smith Street, designated as a Fort Collins landmark in 1996. The proposed work includes the restoration of six, original wood windows for functionality and increased energy efficiency. The applicant is seeking a Landmark Rehabilitation Loan to support the proposed project. APPLICANT: Lisa and Daniel Regan Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report, providing a summary of the proposed work, and a review of the Applicant’s responses to the questions raised by the Commission at the work session, which are included in the updated staff report. City of Fort Collins Page 3 February 15, 2017 Applicant Presentation The contractor on the project, Mark Wernimont from Colorado Sash & Door, Inc., spoke about the method to be used for installation of the storm windows. These windows currently have no weather stripping. He discussed the challenges of heating the upstairs bedrooms. The homeowner, Mr. Regan, reiterated the issues with the heating, stating that they would like to make the home more energy efficient while maintaining its historic character. Staff Response None Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion Mr. Lingle asked Mr. Wernimont to explain the difference between the new storms and the existing storms, and to address why the originals couldn’t be retained. Mr. Wernimont explained that not all of the existing windows have storms. He added that the quality of the wood on the originals may not support the double-strength glass needed to withstand the wind loads over time. Mr. Frick suggested an alternate method to fix the windows. Mr. Wernimont responded that the side and bottom rails were too narrow to allow for adequate venting surface. He noted that the fact that the windows are on the second floor, combined with their height, make them more difficult to put on and take off. The intent for the hanging screens was to make them more functional and usable over a longer period. Mr. Hogestad asked about the hardware, hinges and mounting. Mr. Wernimont said they were mounted like a traditional storm top hanger, with a hook to allow the window to be tipped out further. He explained that the window will open about 7”, utilizing a thumb screw or friction, and the hinge folds into the opening on the inside. Commission Deliberation Mr. Hogestad moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission waive the Conceptual Review and move to Final Review. Ms. Zink seconded. The motion passed 8:0. Mr. Lingle moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the plans and specifications for the installation of six, wood storm windows and weather stripping of the same six windows to the George W. Coffin Property at 525 Smith Street as presented, finding that the proposed work (a) will not erode the authenticity or destroy any distinctive exterior feature or characteristic of the improvements or site; and (b) is compatible with the distinctive characteristics of the landmark and with the spirit and purpose of Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code. Mr. Frick seconded. Ms. Dunn asked for additional insight from the Members who are more knowledgeable about the details of the windows. Mr. Hogestad asked for clarification on whether the rails and styles of the new units were the same as the originals, to which the Applicant responded in the affirmative. Mr. Wernimont added that the work would not prevent the original storms form being put back at a later date, although he does not believe there is any historic glass in the storm windows at this point. Mr. Hogestad said the treatment was a light touch and would make the home more livable. Ms. Simpson asked if the weather stripping would be added to the original windows and the storms. Mr. Wernimont explained that they would be weather stripping the original windows, but it was not necessary on the storms. Mr. Hogestad asked whether the glazing would be single strength, and Mr. Wernimont replied that it would be double strength so that it would be less prone to breakage. City of Fort Collins Page 4 February 15, 2017 Ms. Simpson asked if the weather stripping could be removed without causing permanent damage to the original windows, and Mr. Wernimont confirmed that was the case. Mr. Frick commented that they were not aluminum storms. Mr. Hogestad said it was a good solution to storm windows that will be functional for the homeowners. The motion passed 8:0. 5. 304 EAST MYRTLE (JF FARRAR HOUSE & GARAGE) – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for design review of The J. F. Farrar Property at 304 East Myrtle, designated as a Fort Collins landmark in 1996. The proposed work includes preventative sealing of the failing foundation, installation of gutter system, and regrading of the ground near the alley. This work is a combination of mitigation and preventative measures to help the foundation of the residence. The applicant is seeking a Landmark Rehabilitation Loan to support the proposed project. APPLICANT: Arvin I. and Judith B. Lovaas Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report, providing a summary of the proposed work, and a review of the Applicant’s responses to the questions raised by the Commission at the work session, which are included in the updated staff report. Applicant Presentation The contractor for the project, Kevin Murray from Empire Carpentry, walked the Commission through the project in more detail. He explained the problems with the foundation, and discussed the plans for the gutter system and regrading, which they hope will prevent further failure of the foundation. Ms. Lovaas, the property owner, stated that the loan process was great. She said they were delighted with Mr. Murray’s proposal, and thanked the City and the Commission for providing the tools to address these issues. Commission Questions Ms. Zink asked about the existing conditions of the gutters and why K-style was chosen. Mr. Murray responded that the house originally had no gutters. While half-round might have been more common to the original time period, the east side of the house already has K-style gutters at this point, so it made sense to match that. The existing house has crown mold on top of the fascia, which K-style mimics pretty well. They will not remove the existing trim, but rather install the gutter over the top of the existing trim so it can be removed without altering the original structure. Mr. Hogestad commented that the grade comes right up to the sill of the cellar window, and inquired as to whether the planned regrading would address that. Mr. Murray explained that they would not be grading up to the house because of that window. They would cut a swale in the middle along the property line and create positive drainage from the window toward the center and south. He stated there was currently no moisture problem with that window. Ms. Simpson asked for clarification on the location of the swale. Mr. Murray stated it would be along the property line, rather than 8 feet from the house as had been stated in the documentation. Ms. Simpson inquired as to the direction of the drainage flow. Mr. Murray said it would flow toward the poured driveway, which they would have to work around. Ms. Simpson asked how the area was irrigated, and Mr. Murray relayed Ms. Lovaas’ response that they watered by hand when needed. Staff Response None Public Input None Commission Discussion City of Fort Collins Page 5 February 15, 2017 Mr. Frick inquired about the exposed root. Mr. Murray explained that they would dig under it, rather than remove it, in order to avoid killing the tree. Mr. Hogestad asked whether they would install a pipe or lay gravel to stabilize the drainage route. Mr. Murray said they would only add grass seed. They would also chip a joint into the foundation and the siding to allow monitoring of further movement. Mr. Hogestad asked how much water would be moved under the root. Mr. Murray said this would drain the gutters from half the house, but he hopes the use of gutter extensions will better direct the water flow to the center. He would also like to move the water away from the house to avoid hazardous ice accumulation. Ms. Wallace asked about the foundation on the other sides of the house, other than the west elevation. Mr. Murray said just the one area on the west side was affected. The objective is simply to move the water away from the building in accordance with today’s standards. Commission Deliberation Ms. Zink moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission waive the Conceptual Review and move to Final Review. Ms. Dunn seconded. The motion passed 8:0. Mr. Frick moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the plans and specifications for the preventative sealing of foundation gaps and cracks, gutter installation, and regrading to the J. F. Farrar Property at 304 East Myrtle Street as presented, finding that the proposed work (a) will not erode the authenticity or destroy any distinctive exterior feature or characteristic of the improvements or site; and (b) is compatible with the distinctive characteristics of the landmark and with the spirit and purpose of Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code. Ms. Dunn seconded. Ms. Dunn thanked Mr. Murray for his clear explanations. Mr. Hogestad added that he’d like to see the cellar window dealt with at some point. Ms. Simpson suggested the owners consider moving the plantings away from the cellar window. Ms. Lovaas said there was a hollyhock there that she would move. Mr. Lingle commented that while he understood Mr. Murray’s decision to start with the least invasive solution, if it doesn’t achieve the desired outcome, the owners may need to apply for another loan to mitigate the foundation issues. Mr. Murray agreed, adding that the intent was to remedy the situation sufficiently with minimal cost. The motion passed 8:0. 3. 2306 WEST MULBERRY STREET (THE EMPIRE GRANGE HALL) – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for design review of The Empire Grange Hall at 2306 West Mulberry Street, designated as a Fort Collins landmark in 2003. The proposed work includes replacement of non-historic, vinyl windows and repair of two original windows. The applicant is seeking a Landmark Rehabilitation Loan to support the proposed project. APPLICANT: Erich Stroheim, Master of Empire Grange 148 Acting Chair Ernest disclosed having worked with Erich Stroheim in the past, but stated he did not believe it created any bias. Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report, providing a summary of the proposed work, and a review of the Applicant’s responses to the questions raised by the Commission at the work session, which are included in the updated staff report. Applicant Presentation City of Fort Collins Page 6 February 15, 2017 Mr. Wernimont explained the work to be done to the windows in more detail, and elaborated on his responses to the Commission’s questions from the work session. Commission Questions Mr. Hogestad asked whether the thickness of the new unit and brick mold would allow for proper exposure of the brick return. Mr. Wernimont explained that the process they plan to use would allow the same type of reveal and appearance as the original. He also confirmed that the new window setback would be no more than ¼ inch from where original window sat. Mr. Wernimont said the wall was standard double brick and that he believed there was a space between outer and inner brick. He also explained that if needed, they would add a piece to fill in between the jam extension and the new unit. Mr. Lingle asked for clarification as to whether screens were included in the loan application. Mr. Wernimont explained that they could do screens, but that was not provided in his estimate. He stated screens had been highlighted in the packet, but that was done in error. Mr. Lingle suggested adding a condition that if screens came up later, it would come back to the Commission for approval. Staff Response None Public Input None Commission Deliberation Ms. Zink moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission waive the Conceptual Review and move to Final Review. Mr. Lingle seconded. The motion passed 8:0. Ms. Zink moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the plans and specifications for the wood window installation and repair of historic windows to the Empire Grange Hall Property at 2306 West Mulberry Street as presented, finding that the proposed work (a) will not erode the authenticity or destroy any distinctive exterior feature or characteristic of the improvements or site; and (b) is compatible with the distinctive characteristics of the landmark and with the spirit and purpose of Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code. Ms. Wallace seconded. Mr. Lingle requested the addition of a condition that the approval does not include the provision of screens, and if screens are desired, that discussion would come back to the LPC for consideration of the details and materials. Ms. Zink accepted the addition to the motion. Ms. Wallace seconded. The motion passed 8:0. [Secretary’s Note: The Commission took a brief recess to complete the scoring of the loan applications.] 6. POUDRE RIVER WHITEWATER PARK (PDP160039) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Poudre River Whitewater Park project is located on the Poudre River, east of College Avenue and north of Downtown Fort Collins. The project area includes and is adjacent to several designated landmarks and eligible historic resources. Final review will be a Type II hearing with the Planning and Zoning Board.. APPLICANT: Roger Sherman, BHA Design Ms. Simpson recused herself due to a conflict of interest as a member of the design team. Acting Chair Ernest disclosed he had been in contact with Ron Sladek on another matter earlier in the week, but stated that this review was not mentioned. Staff Report City of Fort Collins Page 7 February 15, 2017 Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report, clarifying the Commission’s role in the process. She also pointed out the proposed area of adjacency in the staff report. Ms. Bzdek noted that the Applicant had provided responses to the Commission’s questions from the work session, and that a revised staff report and attachments were included in the packet. Applicant Presentation Matt Day with the City’s Parks Department addressed the Commission, introducing the project’s team members, including Roger Sherman with BHA Design and Ron Sladek with Tatanka Historical Associates. He mentioned that Anderson Consulting was also part of the team. Mr. Day began the Applicant presentation by discussing the Poudre River Master Plan. He explained that they had divided the river into three reaches and identified the vision for each. The Stormwater, Natural Areas and Parks and Recreation Departments worked together on the goals for the project. He discussed the existing conditions and the relevant historic structures, including the Coy diversion structure, the headgate and the wall, which were all tied to the function of the dam. He discussed the various sites that were critically evaluated for the whitewater park, and explained why the Reach 3 location was the best suited for the project. He talked about the benefits of removing the Coy diversion structure and how that would be facilitate the creation of a terraced river bank. Mr. Day described the planned heritage walk loop which would tie together the history and character of Fort Collins. He gave a broad overview of the approved concept for the master plan with its river improvements, hardscape on the south bank, soft bank on the north, gathering areas and boating features. ADA access to the river is included in the plan. The north bank will provide more access for wildlife connectivity, while the south bank will provide more pedestrian gathering spaces and river recreation. Mr. Sherman with BHA Design talked about some of the landscaping features of the project. He talked about the grade change being conducive to an overlook and pointed out river access areas that allow people to engage with the river. He said there will be a lot of rock in the channel to protect the improvements from flooding. He described the pedestrian bridge, sandstone terrace area, and stone steps. Mr. Sherman explained that they are working with Art in Public Places on the design for the open air structure along the trail, which isn’t final yet. He talked about some of the design elements which play off the old industrial power racks. He discussed the plan to use a fence to dress up the two buildings at Jerome and Vine Streets which have not been acquired by the City. He showed some possibilities for lamps to be used in the project. Mr. Day continued the presentation with information about the timeline and process for the work. He spoke in detail about the historic resources identified within the relevant section of the river, as well as the adjacent historic resources, and the buildings that are in the area. He pointed out those that are non-eligible and will be removed, and those that are eligible will remain and be repurposed. Mr. Day explained that the Coy headgate and ditch wall would remain, but the Coy diversion dam would be removed. He talked about the need to make the headgate safe for a public gathering area by filling in the hole behind it. He said they will leave the original character and integrity of the headgate, so that it could be reversed if needed, and will keep the mechanics exposed for interpretation. Acting Chair Ernest asked about the first Quonset hut, which was labeled as 105 E. Vine on a photo in the packet. Ms. Bzdek clarified that is actually 107 E. Vine, the Hersh Shop Quonset. Staff Response None Public Input City of Fort Collins Page 8 February 15, 2017 None Commission Questions Mr. Lingle asked about a gate shown in one of the photos, and Mr. Day explained that was a non- historical measuring device. He said it was not identified as part of the area of adjacency and will be removed. Commission Deliberation Mr. Hogestad moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission accept the area of adjacency as shown in the staff report. Ms. Dunn seconded. The motion passed 7:0. Commission Discussion Mr. Lingle asked how the diversion dam would be interpreted. Mr. Day said they originally thought from a flood conveyance perspective, that the entire headgate, wall and tree line on the south bank would have to be removed, but they worked hard to preserve as much as possible. They are preserving a representative section of the diversion dam to provide a visual cue, without interfering with water flow. Mr. Sherman said they plan to have signage with photos and a history of the diversion dam and a diagram showing how the dam worked. They are working with the Poudre River Heritage Alliance and the Poudre History Walk, and there is an ongoing discussion about how to tell that story. He expects to come back to the Commission for input when they get further along. He also explained that lowering the river at the dam would get the 100 year flood under College Avenue. Mr. Lingle commented that it would be a challenge to interpret the dam due to its placement. Mr. Sherman said there are still a lot of details to work out, but they want to keep the profile exposed. Mr. Frick asked how long the measuring device had been there. Mr. Sherman said it had been installed when the dam was reconstructed in 1987. Acting Chair Ernest asked Mr. Sladek to talk about the diversion dam and its interpretation, noting that it is a complex object in terms of its history. Mr. Sladek talked about the history and progression of the dam. He said we don’t know what the original Coy Dam looked like, but in the 30’s it was reconstructed as the Power Plant Dam. The third and current dam was built in 1987. He mentioned the significant impact of this dam on Colorado water law. He said that interpretation of the dam should highlight its evolution from agricultural use to the power plant to its impact on the law. He said it would be important to have a remnant still standing and adequate signage nearby to tell the story of the Coy ditch, the power plant and the evolution of Colorado water law. Acting Chair Ernest emphasized the importance of conveying the evolution of the dam. Acting Chair Ernest asked about the unidentified concrete structure. Mr. Sladek explained it was the base of the pump house for the sugar factory’s water pump, which was used to wash the beets into the plant. Mr. Sladek brought up the diversion structure in relation to the conclusions in his 2016 report. He stated that due to the significance of the Power Plant Dam from the 30’s through the 80’s, and its potential eligibility for the national register as well as local landmark designation, it would be worthwhile for the City to do a Level I or II documentation (not a full HABS/HAER) to provide measured drawings and photographs of the dam. He said it has already been documented, but the photos and measured drawings should be done before it’s gone. Mr. Frick asked if the water would have to be drained to do measured drawings. Mr. Sladek said it would need to be done when the water level is low. Mr. Frick suggested retaining a remnant of the dam from the south side to provide a visual cue of where it existed. Mr. Sherman said they could look into that, and if it weren’t possible to salvage a piece of it, they may be able to recognize where it was in some way in the pavement or on a wall. Mr. Hogestad asked how the buildings to be demolished were reviewed. Ms. Bzdek said they were reviewed through the standard demolition alteration review process. Mr. Sladek said he had produced site forms on all the buildings, and Ms. Bzdek said the site forms for 105 and 107 E. Vine were included in the packet. There was some discussion about whether there may have been any cultural significance tied to any of those homes. Mr. Sladek was unaware of any, but Mr. Hogestad suggested it might be worth a little more attention. City of Fort Collins Page 9 February 15, 2017 Mr. Hogestad asked how long the river had been its current width and wondered whether that was historically significant. Mr. Sladek said the Core of Engineers came in the mid-1930’s to dredge the river and change it from braided to single channel. He went on to note that the river has changed significantly from what it had been before that. Mr. Hogestad questioned how the wetlands buffer was established. Mr. Sherman said they had worked with the Natural Areas and Environmental Planning departments. There was some discussion about wildlife in the area. Mr. Sherman explained that they are trying to maximize the benefits to stormwater, recreation and wildlife, and the concept had been approved by City Staff in the master plan. Ms. Dunn asked about the cement retaining wall. Mr. Sherman said it would be removed and replaced with cement. Ms. Dunn also commented that the pictures of the lamps were helpful. Mr. Hogestad asked what one would expect to see on the history walk. Mr. Sherman said it could include art, interaction with social media through QR codes and other elements. He said there will be extensive communication with the Bohemian Foundation, the Poudre Heritage Alliance, and the Landmark Preservation Commission as the plan progresses. Acting Chair Ernest noted that questions about the social and cultural significance of the non-historic structures to be demolished could be resolved with the site forms. Mr. Sladek added that since the headgate for the Coy ditch would be filled in, it would be wise to record that as well with Level I or II photos and measured drawings. He noted that there is concrete work on top of old stone work which would no longer be visible if it’s filled in. Ms. Zink asked about the role of archeology in this process. Mr. Sladek said an archeological team had surveyed the project area and found nothing of significance. He pointed out that they weren’t looking at the built structures, since he had documented those. Mr. Sladek said it would be advisable to have an archeologist in the field when excavation is being conducted, adding that there is a stone wall under the river that could be recorded by an archeologist while the excavation is going on. Acting Chair Ernest suggested creating a condition in the motion to document the dam and head gate. Ms. Dunn wondered whether the motion could also include Mr. Frick’s suggestion to explore the idea of incorporating a portion of the south side of the dam into the new landscape. Commission Deliberation Mr. Frick moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to the Decision Maker approval of the Poudre River Whitewater Park (PDP160039), finding it is in compliance with the standards contained in Land Use Code section 3.4.7 in regard to compatibility with the character of the project’s area of adjacency for the reasons stated in the staff report. Any future plans for alterations to 107 E. Vine will require a separate review process, which should be noted on all final plans and documents. In addition, the Commission recommends the following to the Applicant: 1. Complete a Level I or II documentation of the dam and headgates as they exist today. 2. Consider retaining a portion of the dam on the south side of the river as part of the interpretation of the entire dam site. 3. Provide archeological monitoring during construction. [Proposed as a friendly amendment by Mr. Lingle.] 4. Allow the Commission to review plans for public art or interpretive elements for the history walk and interpretation of the dam as the design progresses. [Proposed as a friendly amendment by Ms. Zink.] Mr. Frink accepted the proposed amendments. Ms. Dunn seconded. Mr. Hogestad stated that it was a handsome project with interesting and exciting things going on in the project. However, he explained that he has a fundamental problem with the performance standard on the buffers, and will abstain from voting.