Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 01/15/2020Landmark Preservation Commission Page 1 January 15, 2020 Meg Dunn, Chair City Council Chambers Alexandra Wallace, Co-Vice Chair City Hall West Michael Bello 300 Laporte Avenue Mollie Bredehoft Fort Collins, Colorado Elizabeth Michell Kevin Murray Anne Nelsen Anna Simpkins Vacant Regular Meeting January 15, 2020 Minutes • CALL TO ORDER Chair Dunn called the meeting to order at 5:34 p.m. • ROLL CALL PRESENT: Bello, Bredehoft, Dunn, Michell, Murray, Nelsen, Simpkins, Wallace ABSENT: GUEST: Kurt Knierim (incoming LPC member) STAFF: Bzdek, Bertolini, Yatabe, Schiager New Commission member, Elizabeth Michell, introduced herself and stated she has a master’s degree in History with a specialization in Historic Preservation. • AGENDA REVIEW Mr. Bertolini stated there were no changes to the posted agenda. Chair Dunn stated she would like to discuss other business first since she would be recusing herself from the last item and will leave at that time. • STAFF REPORTS None. Landmark Preservation Commission Landmark Preservation Commission Page 2 January 15, 2020 • OTHER BUSINESS – moved as requested by Chair Dunn Chair Dunn mentioned the Saving Places conference taking place later this month and expressed appreciation to Council and the City for the opportunity to go. Chair Dunn announced the upcoming Winter Mixer put on by Historic Larimer County and invited any interested members, staff, or members of the public to attend. • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. • CONSENT AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 18, 2020. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the December 18, 2020 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. 2. STAFF DESIGN REVIEW DECISIONS ON DESIGNATED PROPERTIES Staff is tasked with reviewing projects and, in cases where the project can be approved without submitting to the Landmarks Preservation Commission, with issuing a Certificate of Appropriateness or a SHPO report under Chapter 14, Article IV of the City’s Municipal Code. This item is a report of all such review decisions since the last meeting of the Commission. Mr. Bello moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the Consent Agenda of the January 15, 2020 regular meeting as presented. Ms. Nelsen seconded. The motion passed 8-0. • DISCUSSION AGENDA 3. HORSLEY/DELTA ZETA PROPERTY, 201 E. ELIZABETH ST. - APPLICATION FOR FORT COLLINS LANDMARK DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION: This item is to consider the request for a recommendation to City Council for landmark designation of the Horsley/Delta Zeta Property. APPLICANT: 201 East Elizabeth Street, LLC, Owner, C/O Stephanie Walter Mr. Murry recused himself from this item due to discussions he has had with the owner regarding design assistance. Staff Report Ms. Jones presented the staff report providing historic context and explaining staff findings related to significance under standard one, events, and standard three, design and construction. She noted the property is within the Laurel School Historic District and discussed the Tudor Revival style of the house. Applicant Presentation None. Public Input None. Commission Questions and Discussion Chair Dunn pointed out an error in the application related to standards five, six, and seven. Ms. Jones stated that correction would be made. Ms. Wallace commented on the integrity of the property and its strong example of the Tudor Revival style. Landmark Preservation Commission Page 3 January 15, 2020 Chair Dunn agreed and noted several homes of this style were demolished. Commission Deliberation Mr. Bello moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend that City Council adopt an ordinance to designate the Horsley/Delta Zeta Property at 201 E. Elizabeth St., as a Fort Collins Landmark, finding that this property is eligible for its significance to Fort Collins under Standards 1, Events, and 3, Design/Construction, as supported by the analysis provided in the staff report dated January 15, 2020, and that the property clearly conveys this significance through all seven aspects of integrity; and finding also that the designation of this property will promote the policies and purposes of the City as specified in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. Ms. Nelsen seconded. The motion passed unanimously. 4. THE BROWN-GOODING HOUSE AT 425 MATHEWS STREET - APPLICATION FOR FORT COLLINS LANDMARK DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION: This item is to consider the request for a recommendation to City Council for landmark designation of the Brown-Gooding House at 425 Mathews Street. APPLICANT: Sarah Breseke and Wouter Montfrooij Mr. Murry recused himself from this item due to having worked on the property. Staff Report Mr. Bertolini presented the staff report. He reviewed the history of the property and pointed out the many significant buildings built by Mr. Schroeder. He talked about the significance of the property and stated it retains all seven aspects of integrity. He noted a question was asked at the work session about what is under the plywood and, upon additional inspection, it was found to be a matching fixed 6-light window that was boarded up on the exterior. Applicant Presentation None. Public Input None. Commission Questions and Discussion Chair Dunn asked if there is an official place on the document that references the 1903 period of significance. Mr. Bertolini replied there is not currently a line for period of significance, though staff has considered adding it to the nomination form to assist with future design review and planning decisions. Chair Dunn asked whether the garage should be included within the period of significance. Mr. Bertolini replied a correction would be made to extend the period of significance at least to 1912. Commission Deliberation Mr. Bello moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend that City Council adopt an ordinance to designate the Brown-Gooding House at 425 Mathews, as a Fort Collins Landmark, finding that this property is eligible for its significance to Fort Collins under Standard 3, design/construction, as supported by the analysis provided in the staff report dated January 15, 2020, and that the property clearly conveys this significance through all seven aspects of integrity; and finding also that the designation of this property will promote the policies and purposes of the City as specified in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code, and that the period of significance should be noted as 1903-1912. Ms. Nelsen seconded. Chair Dunn stated this is another great example of this style of architecture. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Murray returned to the meeting. Chair Dunn and Ms. Nelsen recused themselves from the next item due to conflicts of interest. Vice Chair Wallace chaired this item. Landmark Preservation Commission Page 4 January 15, 2020 5. 714 W. MOUNTAIN AVENUE – CARRIAGE HOUSE ALTERATION – DESIGN REVIEW DESCRIPTION: The property owner is seeking approval for an addition to house indoor parking to their existing historic carriage house. This request is based on a conceptual review placed before the LPC in December 2019, which included two options. The owner has selected an option (Option 1) which involves making an addition of one garage bay to the west elevation of the existing structure. The project also proposes replacement in-kind of the wood shingle cladding on the carriage house, and the installation of windows on the gable-end window openings on the upper floor. Staff has issued a Certificate of Appropriateness for the roof replacement. APPLICANT: Henry P. Thode, III Staff Report Mr. Bertolini presented the staff report. He reviewed the historic aspects of the home noting the carriage house is a secondary but contributing historic element. He reviewed the role of the Commission and detailed the proposed work, noting the Applicant would be seeking the Commission’s guidance on whether to rehabilitate or replace the garage door. He shared the architectural drawings for the garage addition and reviewed the staff findings of fact. He stated clarification is needed for the historic garage door treatment and noted specifications on replacement wood shingle cladding were provided earlier in the month. Commission Questions of Staff Acting Chair Wallace asked if staff has considered the wood shingle replacement to be in-kind. Mr. Bertolini replied in the affirmative and stated staff considered full replacement an appropriate treatment given the deterioration of the shingles on three elevations. Mr. Murray asked about standard 9. Mr. Bertolini replied it is staff’s opinion that the design of the new addition complies; however, that is ultimately a decision for the Commission. Applicant Presentation Jeff Gaines with High Craft Builders gave the Applicant presentation. He addressed questions from the work session and provided Commission members with an engineering report, an arborist evaluation and a plan of protection for their review. Mr. Gaines discussed the plan of protection and stated the general proposal for the garage interior involves cladding the wall with shingles, which adds to the reversibility of the structure. He discussed an engineer's review of the existing structure and stated the engineer's assessment is that there is no cause to believe the new addition would do harm to the existing foundation, but he discussed a plan to add a beam to carry the roof load if necessary. Mr. Gaines discussed the large tree on the site noting an assessment resulted in the recommendation to prune its roots and begin watering the tree in advance of construction. He went on to discuss the proposed garage door style stating it would not have windows and would be constructed of wood. He stated replacing the garage door would allow a car to be put in the garage from the driveway. Mr. Thode discussed the difficulties of the existing garage door noting it is too tight for his small truck. Public Input None. Commission Questions and Discussion Ms. Bredehoft asked if the opening size will be changed with the new garage door. Mr. Gaines replied just the door itself would change. Mr. Murray asked if there is enough room to install an overhead garage door. Mr. Gaines replied in the affirmative. Mr. Murray asked if there is plaster on the inside of the garage. Mr. Gaines replied in the negative and stated there is very little cracking on the concrete slab. Mr. Murray asked if the footer has been excavated for examination. Mr. Gaines replied in the negative. Landmark Preservation Commission Page 5 January 15, 2020 Mr. Murray asked if the structure is going to be heated. Mr. Gaines replied in the affirmative. Mr. Murray stated insulation around the outside of the foundation will likely be necessary to stop the frost line. [Secretary’s Note: Upon review of the draft minutes, Mr. Murray clarified that he intended to say “stop the heaving of the building due to frost”, rather than “stop the frostline”.] Ms. Simpkins asked when the current garage doors were installed. Mr. Thode replied they were there when his family moved in in 1955. Commission Discussion Vice Chair Wallace requested members discuss the areas of concern as identified by staff. Mr. Murray stated the supplementary roof framing makes sense to improve the integrity of the structure and make the building usable. He also stated replacing the shingles makes sense and stated he is not concerned with reinstalling the windows. He commended the hopper window repairs and stated removing the roof extension makes sense. He expressed some concern with the garage door replacement and questioned whether there would be a possibility of using design assistance to make the existing doors function. He also discussed the importance of being able to preserve the original structure should the addition be removed in the future. Ms. Michell asked about coming in from the north side. Mr. Thode replied it would take a fair amount of maneuvering. Mr. Gaines discussed the option of repairing the garage doors, which he stated would be possible; however, the issue is reliability and the opening being too tight to drive a car into. Mr. Murray suggested it would be possible to keep the doors with some type of system that would provide enough width. Mr. Bello asked if the new garage door on the back side of the garage could be the primary entrance. Mr. Gaines replied that would be the primary entrance if the other doors are not able to be changed; however, there is some concern regarding the maneuvering room on the back-alley side. Ms. Simpkins noted the garage doors do not appear to be 100 years old and do not match up with the period of significance. Acting Chair Wallace asked if it would strongly impact the Commission's decision to consider the doors a character defining feature if the doors are assumed to not be from the period of significance. Mr. Bello replied in the affirmative. Acting Chair Wallace questioned how old the doors would need to be for the Commission to consider them as part of the age of significance. She questioned whether the doors could be more accurately dated. Ms. Simpkins stated she does not believe the doors could be much older than 1955. Acting Chair Wallace stated she is torn given a period of significance has been established; therefore, the doors may have achieved significance as a character defining feature. Mr. Murray suggested this item may need to be tabled and again encouraged the applicant and owner to utilize the design assistance program. Mr. Gaines replied they would not like to table the item and stated they could go with the second option to attempt to rework the existing door if replacing the door is not a compromise that can be made to allow the use of the building. Acting Chair Wallace stated there is no need to table the item and asked members which option would best meet the Secretary of the Interior standards. Mr. Murray replied he would be supportive of replacing hardware to make the doors operational with an automatic opener. Ms. Bredehoft asked to discuss other elements of the project. Commission members discussed the other alterations and found no issues with the weight on the carriage house issue, shingle replacement, and window repair. Ms. Simpkins asked if there is a second story window on the west façade. Mr. Thode replied it is a bat house. Ms. Simpkins asked if two different doors are being proposed on the north side. Mr. Gaines replied in the affirmative and commented on the differentiation. Acting Chair Wallace stated staff expressed concerns with standards 2, 5, and 6.