Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 02/16/2010 - COMMISSIONS DECEMBER 9, 2009 DENIAL OF THE APPELLA :DATE::February 16, 2010 'ren McWilliams FORT COLLINSCOUNCIL Consideration of the Appeal to City Council of the Landmark Preservation Commission's December 9, 2009 Denial of the Appellant's Request to Install "Hardie Plank" Fiber Cement Siding on the Historic Rigden Farm Barn. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On December 9, 2009, the Landmark Preservation Commission considered a Conceptual and Final Review of a proposal to allow fiber cement siding("Hardie Plank )to be installed over the historic wood siding ofthe Henry Jessup/ Cal Johnson Barn,a designated Fort Collins Landmark located at2902 Rigden Parkway. The Landmark Preservation Commission considered testimony from the applicant, the public and staff, and unanimously denied the request. The Appellant, representing the Rigden Farm Master Association,filed a Notice of Appeal with the City Clerk's Office on December 23, 2009, seeking redress of the action of the Landmark Preservation Commission which is the subject of this appeal. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm, commonly referred to as the Rigden Farm, is comprised of a Craftsman style farmhouse, gambrel roof barn, historic garage, chicken coop, and bunk house. The distinctive masonry farmhouse and large wood barn were both built circa 1919. In 2000,the farm buildings were relocated a short distance from their original location at the corner of Timberline and Drake Roads to 2902 Rigden Parkway, to accommodate the Rigden Farm mixed use development project and the capital project to widen Timberline Road. Following the relocation of the buildings, Council adopted Ordinance No. 141, 2000, designating the farm as a Fort Collins Landmark in recognition of the buildings' architectural importance. In 2001, the barn was adaptively rehabilitated for use as a meeting room. The Appellant wants to clad over the barn's existing historic wood siding with new fiber cement siding, called"Hardie Plank." Staff believes that the siding should be repaired rather than replaced or covered over, and further believes that the use of"Hardie Plank"fiber cement material in this instance would not complywith the requirements of Section 14-48(b); the Commission agreed with the staff and denied this application. Preservation staff visited the site in November 2009, and found the barn to be in relatively good condition. It does require maintenance, consisting of repair work to patch portions of the siding and fresh paint. ACTION OF THE LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION At the December 9, 2009 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission, the Commission made the following findings of fact and conclusions: 1. The proposed work is not in accordance with Chapter 14,Article III (b)(1) because the proposed work would alter and diminish the historical and architectural character of the landmarked buildings. 2. The proposed covering of the historic fabric and associated features with a skin, and removing historic windows, will adversely affect the arrangement, texture and materials of the existing historic buildings, and their consistency and relationship to each other,which is not in accordance with Chapter 14,Article III (b)(2). 3. The proposed work is not in accordance with Chapter 14, Article III (b)(3), as covering the historic structures with new materials,as proposed,would give the buildings an appearance similarto the non-historic structures in the modern Rigden Farm development, adversely affecting the buildings' ability to be recognized as a physical record of their true, historic time, and would instead create a false sense of the time in which the buildings were constructed and which they are purported to reflect. February 16 2010 -2- ITEM 23 4. The proposed work is not in accordance with Chapter 14, Article III (b)(4) because placing a view skin over the existing historic structure could lead to damage to the historic structures and their character defining features from nail penetration aswell as from moisture seepage and vermin infestation thatcould not be easily detected. 5. The proposed work is not in accordance with Chapter 14, Article III (b)(5) because it does not meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Specifically, the proposed work does not meet: a. Standard Number 2 since it would remove the historic windows and it would cover features that characterize the property; b. Standard Number 3 since,as the applicant stated at the November 18,2009 Landmark Preservation Commission meeting, covering the historic structures with new materials, as proposed, would give the buildings the same appearance as the non-historic structures in the modern Rigden Farm development that surrounds the landmarked buildings; C. Standard Number 5 since it would remove the historic windows, and it would cover other distinctive features, specifically the historic siding that covers the facades and all other exterior walls of the landmarked structures. This Standard means that the distinctive features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved visually,as well as physically. Covering a historic structure or its distinctive features so that they are removed from sight does not preserve the historic features, etc. as specified in this Standard; d. Standard Number 6 since the condition of the historic fabric is such that repair is warranted, rather than replacement, and that the proposal would replace the historic windows rather than repair them. The exterior walls and their materials are distinctive features that should also be repaired,rather than be replaced with a new exterior skin that would not match the historic materials; e. Standard Number 9 as the proposed exterior alterations will destroy historic materials and could lead to damage to the historic structures from nails, moisture penetration and vermin infestation that could not be easily detected.; and f. Standard Number 10 as the proposed new construction could not be removed without damage to the historic property, and, if it is removed, the historic windows, a character defining feature, would no longer exist. 6. The Commission considered the testimony of the applicant, the public and staff, and voted 6-0 to deny the request. ALLEGATIONS OF APPEAL On December 23, 2009, a Notice of Appeal was received by the City Clerk's Office from the representative of the Rigden Farm Master Association. The Appellant alleges that: 1. The property should not be a historic landmark,and so the Commission did not have the authority to consider the item. 2. The Commission failed to conduct a fair hearing. 3. The Commission failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter. February 16 2010 -3- ITEM 23 QUESTIONS COUNCIL NEEDS TO ANSWER 1. Did the Landmark Preservation Commission have the authority to hear the item? 2. Did the Landmark Preservation Commission fail to hold a fair hearing? 3. Did the Landmark Preservation Commission fail to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter? SUMMARY OF RELEVANT ISSUES List of Relevant Code Provisions, and Staff's Response as to Whether the Application Meets the Code Provision The applicable Code provision is Section 14-48. Section 14-48(a) introduces the subject by stating that applications should be evaluated as to whether the proposed work is of a nature that will not erode the authenticity or destroy any distinctive exterior feature of the historic structure. Subsection (b) is the criteria that the Commission is to use in making that evaluation: Sec. 14-48. Approval of proposed work. (a) If upon the receipt of an application... the Commission finds that the proposed work is of a nature which will not erode the authenticity or destroy any distinctive exterior feature or characteristic... (b) In determining the decision to be made concerning the issuance of a report of acceptability,the Commission shall consider the following criteria: (1) The effect of the proposed work upon the general historical and/or architectural character of the landmark or landmark district; Staffbelieves the proposed work would alter and diminish the historical and architectural character of the landmarked buildings. (2) The architectural style, arrangement,texture and materials of existing and proposed improvements, and their relation to the sites, structures and objects in the district; Staff believes that covering the historic fabric and removing historic windows will adversely affect the arrangement, texture and materials of the existing historic buildings, and their consistency and relationship to each other. (3) The effects of the proposed work in creating, changing or destroying the exterior characteristics of the site,structure or object upon which such work is to be done; Staff believes that the proposed work would change and/or destroy character defining features of the landmarked buildings. Specifically, the proposed work would alter or destroy the original fabric of the historic windows, and alter the historic appearance of the structures'exterior wood siding, which would be hidden under a new skin. In addition,placing a new skin over the existing historic structures could lead to unwarranted damage to the historic structures, from nails, moisture penetration and vermin infestation that could not be easily detected. (4) The effect of the proposed work upon the protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of the landmark or landmark district;Staff believes that placing a newskin overthe existing historic structure could lead to damage to the historic structures and their character defining features from nails as well as from moisture penetration and vermin infestation that could not be easily detected. (5) The extent to which the proposed work meets the standards of the city and the United States Secretary of the Interior then in effect for the preservation, reconstruction, restoration or rehabilitation of historic resources. Staff believes that the proposed work does not meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, as discussed below. February 16, 2010 -4- ITEM 23 Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties There are four distinct, but interrelated, approaches to the treatment of historic properties — Preservation, Rehabilitation, Restoration, and Reconstruction. Each of the four treatments is briefly described below: "Preservation means the act or process of applying measures necessary to sustain the existing form, integrity and materials of an historic property. Work, including preliminary measures to protect and stabilize the property,generally focuses upon the ongoing maintenance and repairof historic materials and features ratherthan extensive replacement and new construction. New exterior additions are not within the scope of this treatment; however, the limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical,electrical and plumbing systems and other code-required work to make properties functional is appropriate within a preservation project." A Fort Collins example of a project following the Standards for the"Preservation"Treatment is the Avery House. "Rehabilitation means the act or process of making possible an efficient compatible use for a property through repair, alterations and additions while preserving those portions or features that convey its historical, cultural or architectural values." The great majority of projects in Fort Collins fall under the Rehabilitation Treatment, and are reviewed according to the Standards for Rehabilitation. "Restoration means the act or process of accurately depicting the form, features and character of a property as it appeared at a particular period of time by means of the removal of features from other periods in its history and reconstruction of missing features from the restoration period. The limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems and other code-required work to make properties functional is appropriate within a restoration project." An example of projects following the Standards for"Restoration" is the accurate reconstruction of the missing full-width porch on the Spencer House at 425 East Elizabeth Street, undertaken in 1995; or the 1980s rebuilding of the hose tower on the old firehouse on Walnut Street. "Reconstruction means the act or process of depicting,by means of new construction,the form,features and detailing of a non-surviving site, landscape, building, structure or object for the purpose of replicating its appearance at a specific period of time and in its historic location." An example of Reconstruction would be a project to rebuild the Strauss Cabin at its site on the Environmental Learning Center, lost due to an arson fire. In choosing the appropriate Treatment, staff considers the property's historical significance, physical condition, use, and intended interpretation. Staff determined that the appropriate treatment for the Commission's consideration of this request was"Rehabilitation." This treatment has ten Standards. All ten Standards must be met. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation,and Staff's Assessment as to Whetherthe Criteria Was Met Standard 1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. Staff believes that the barn's 2001 adaptive reuse as a meeting room or club house meets this Standard. No new use is proposed. Standard 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved.The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. Staff believes the proposed project does not meet this Standard, as it would remove the historic windows and would cover historic features that characterize the property. Standard 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings,shall not be undertaken. Staff believes that the project would not meet this Standard since, as the applicant noted at the November 18, 2009 Landmark Preservation Commission meeting, covering the historic structures with new materials, as proposed, would give the buildings an appearance similar to the non-historic structures in the modern Rigden Farm development, adversely affecting the buildings'ability to be recognized as a physical record of their historic time, and create a false sense of the time in which the buildings were constructed. February 16 2010 -5- ITEM 23 Standard 4. Most properties change overtime;those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. Staff believes that Standard Number is not applicable to this project. Standard 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved. Staff believes that the proposed work does not meet this Standard, as it involves removing the historic windows, and it would cover distinctive materials and features, specifically the historic siding that covers all of the exterior walls of the landmarked structures. This Standard means that the distinctive features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved visually, as well as physically. Covering a historic structure or its distinctive features so that they are removed from sight does not fulfill the meaning of preserve the historic features, etc. as specified in this Standard. Standard 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary,physical,or pictorial evidence. Staffbelieves that the proposed work does not meet this Standard. The material's level of deterioration is not to the extent that replacement is needed. The proposed work would remove, rather than repair, the historic windows. The exterior walls and their materials are distinctive historic features that should also be repaired, as needed, rather than replaced or covered with a new exterior of materials that do not match the historic materials. Standard 7. Chemical or physical treatments,such as sandblasting,that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used.The surface cleaning of structures,if appropriate,shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Staff believes Standard Number 7 is not applicable to this project. Standard 8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. Staff believes Standard Number 8 is not applicable to this project. Standard 9. Newadditions,exterior alterations,or related new construction shall notdestroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing,size,scale,and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. Staff believes the proposed work does not meet this Standard because the proposed exterior alterations will destroy historic materials and could lead to damage to the historic structures from nails, moisture penetration and vermin infestation that could not be easily detected. Standard 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. Staff believes the proposed project does not meet this Standard since the proposed new construction could not be removed without damage to the historic property, and, if removed, the historic windows, a character defining feature, would no longer exist. SUMMARY OF RELEVANT ISSUES AND STAFF'S ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION The Notice of Appeal from the representative of the Rigden Farm Master Association alleges the following issues and staff offers the subsequent analysis and response based on the record: • Specific allegation that the property should not be a historic landmark, and staff's response: Allegation #1 The Appellant alleges that the Landmark Preservation Commission erred in taking this item under consideration, as the property should not be considered a Fort Collins Landmark. February 16 2010 -6- ITEM 23 Staff Response The Landmark Preservation Commission did not err. At the request of Rigden Farm, LLC,the Appellant's predecessor in interest, the farm property was designated by the Council as a Landmark on November 7, 2000, by Ordinance No. 141, 2000. The question of designation, and the allegation of"inverse condemnation,"was not properly before the Commission. • Specific allegations that the Landmark Preservation Commission did not hold a fair hearing, and staffs response: Allegation#1 The Appellant alleges that the Landmark Preservation Commission failed to conduct a fair hearing because the Commission erred by applying the City's Code and regulations on property that has not been explained or supported with specific facts or evidence. Staff Response The Commission did not err. The record reflects that specific facts pertaining to the new proposed siding were well explained to the Commission, and the Commission was familiar with its regulatory code and Secretary of Interior Standards. Allegation#2 The Appellant alleges that the Landmark Preservation Commission failed to conduct a fair hearing because the Commission erred in its consideration since the information was provided at the hearing, rather than prior to the hearing, and was too technical for an adequate review at the hearing. Staff Response The Commission did not err. Evidence is to be received by the Commission only at the hearing and was the type of evidence that is well within the competence of the Commission and its expertise to consider. The record reflects that the Appellant had ample time to present its arguments to the Commission. • Specific allegations thatthe Landmark Preservation Commission failed to properly interpret and apply City Code, and staff's response: Allegation#1 The Appellant alleges that the Landmark Preservation Commission failed to correctly apply the criteria in Chapter 14, Article lll, Section 14-48(b), of the City Code, because the Appellant was misled by City staff that economics can not be a factor in the Commission's decisions. Staff Response , The Commission did not err. The Commission is familiar with the Secretary of Interior Standards, and has the ability to take into consideration the economic and technical feasibility of a project. During the hearing, City staff specifically stated that the Secretary of Interior Standards"do offer some leeway and talk about reasonable accommodations for things such as.. .economics and technical issues." (December9,2009 Landmark Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes, page 5.) Allegation #2 The Appellant alleges that the Landmark Preservation Commission failed to correctly apply the criteria in Chapter 14, Article lll, Section 14-48(b), of the City Code, because the Appellant was misinformed as to when funds available for repairs needed to be refunded. February 16 2010 -7- ITEM 23 Staff Response: The Commission did not err. Grant and loan program specifics, including repayment, were not discussed at the hearing. Information on the Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program was provided to the Appellant some time prior to the hearing, and did not, according to the record, have any effect on the outcome of the hearing. Allegation #3 The Appellant alleges that the Landmark Preservation Commission failed to correctly apply the criteria in Chapter 14, Article lll, Section 14-48(b), of the City Code, because the difference in treatment for repayment of Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program fund between non-profit and for-profit entities appears to have no justifiable reason. Staff Response The Commission did not err. Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program specifics, including the difference in repayment of Program fund between non-profit and for-profit, were not discussed at the hearing. Allegation#4 a. The Appellant alleges that the Landmark Preservation Commission failed to correctly apply the criteria in Chapter 14, Article lll, Section 14-48(b), of the City Code, because the Commission failed to support its findings with specific findings of facts. The Appellant maintains that the Commission's decision is a general finding without specific examples. Staff Response The Commission did not err. Specific facts justifying the Commission's Findings were provided in the December 9, 2009 Staff Report and recommendations. These findings discuss how the use of fiber cement siding can cause damage to the historic building and alters and diminishes the barn's historical and architectural character, such as through the introduction of nail holes into the historic wood when applying the cement skin, as opposed to the nails required if repairing selected boards; through the deleterious effects of moisture trapped between the cement and historic wood siding, as opposed to the ability for moisture to evaporate; and due to the inability to visually inspect the wood siding for damage relating to moisture, molds and fungus, and insect damage. b. The Appellant alleges that the Landmark Preservation Commission failed to correctly apply the criteria in Chapter 14, Article lll, Section 14-48(b)(2), of the City Code, because the Commission failed to support its findings with specific findings of facts. In support of its decision the Commission states 'that the proposed covering of the historic fabric and associated features with a skin, and removing historic windows, will adversely affectthe arrangement,texture and materials of the existing historic buildings,and their consistency and relationship to each other,which is not in accordance with Chapter 14, Article III (b)(2)." The appellant maintains that the proposed work does reflect the existing texture and materials and their consistence and relationship to each other are identical and any adverse affect is minimal. Staff Response: The Commission did not err. The Appellant is proposing to add a layer of Hardie Plank fiber cement siding over the existing siding. This will make the barn's siding thicker, compromising the trim details and the relationship with the shadow lines. This would notably alter the barn's appearance and adversely affect the historical integrity of the building. While there may be an initial visual similarity between cement siding molded to look like wood and the barn's historic wood siding, those similarities do not extend to a closer visual inspection, nor to the physical texture of wood vs. concrete fiber. Finally, covering the barn with cement siding adversely affects the barn's consistency and relationship to the other historic wood sided Jessup/Johnson farm buildings. C. The Appellant alleges that the Landmark Preservation Commission failed to correctly apply the criteria in Chapter 14, Article HI, Section 14-48(b)(3), of the City Code, because the Commission failed to support its findings with specific findings of facts. In support of its decision the Commission states 'That the proposed work is not in accordance with Chapter 14,Article(b)(3),as covering the historic structure with new materials, as proposed, would give the buildings an appearance similar to the non-historic structures in the modern February 16, 2010 -8- ITEM 23 Rigden Farm development, adversely affecting the buildings'ability to be recognized as a physical record of their true, historic time, and would instead create a false sense of the time in which the buildings were constructed and which they are purported to reflect." The Appellant maintains that the Commission based this decision on the belief that the proposed work would change or destroy character defining features of the landmark buildings;and that placing new skin over the existing historic structures could lead to unwarranted damage to the historic structures. Staff Response: The Commission did not err. In making its decision regarding if the proposal met this Standard, the Commission considered that covering the historic structure with new materials,as proposed,would give the building the appearance of being recently constructed, rather than dating to 1919 and appearing as an authentic part of our community's history. In its Findings, the Commission did express that it would be difficult to recognize a fiber cement clad barn as a physical record of its true, historic time,and that it would instead create a false sense of the time in which the building was constructed, and the time in which the barn is purported to reflect. d. The Appellant alleges that the Landmark Preservation Commission failed to correctly apply the criteria in Chapter 14, Article 111, Section 14-48(b)(4), of the City Code, because the Commission failed to support its findings with specific findings of facts. In support of its decision the Commission states that the proposed work is not in accordance with Chapter 14, Article III (b)(4) as placing new skin over the existing historic structures could lead to unwarranted damage to the historic structures, from nails, moisture penetration and vermin infestation that could not be easily detected." The Appellant alleges that staffs reasoning regarding how the new skin could lead to unwarranted damage to the historic structures is unfounded. The Appellant argues that the reason for the proposed work is to repair the existing damage caused by water, rot, and flicker holes. In addition, the proposed material not only appears to be the same as the existing materials it is designed to prevent the damages the Commission and staff are alleging may occurin the future. Any material used to repair this damage would be new materials and would have the same affect. The proposed materials match the existing materials but have the added advantage of providing the protections against flicker, water and wood rot damage to the buildings. The proposition that the skin covering"may"cause the aforementioned damage to the building is speculative, unfounded and without proof. Staff Response: The Commission did not err. While the Appellant may be correct in believing that covering a historic wood sided structure with cement siding will likely prevent future damage from flickers, information provided by the City's Natural Resources Department shows that a far easier and cheaper solution could be the introduction of a flicker nesting box or two. Flickers are very territorial, and tend to chase away other birds. As stated previously, the use of fiber cement siding can cause damage to the historic building through the introduction of nail holes into the historic wood when applying the cement skin,as opposed to the nails required if repairing selected boards;through the deleterious effects of moisture trapped between the cement and historic wood siding,as opposed to the ability for moisture to evaporate; and due to the inability to visually inspect the wood siding for damage relating to moisture and insect damage. In-kind wood repairs on a wood building would cause far less visual inconsistency and damage to historic material than covering the building with fiber cement siding. e. The Appellant alleges that the Landmark Preservation Commission failed to correctly apply the criteria in Chapter 14, Article lll, Section 14-48(b)(5), of the City Code, because the Commission failed to support its findings with specific findings of facts. In support of its decision the Commission states 'that the proposed work is not in accordance with Chapter 14, Article III (b)(5) because it does not meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. The Commission further states that specifically, the proposed work does not meet Standard Number 2, 3, 5, 6, 9 and 10." Staff Response: The Commission did not err. The Secretary of the Interior's Rehabilitation Standard Number 2 states: "The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided." Staff believes the proposed project does not meet Standard 2, as it would alter and cover distinctive historic features and material that characterize the property. An important tenet of Historic Preservation is authenticity. Covering the barn over with cement siding,when repairing is feasible and in-kind wood siding is readily available, does not promote the goals of Standard Number 2. February 16 2010 -9- ITEM 23 Standard Number 3 states:"Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time,place,and use.Changes that create a false sense of historical development...will not be undertaken." Staff believes the project would not meet this Standard since covering the historic structures with cement siding, as proposed,would make the farm buildings appear to be newly constructed buildings, similar to the structures in the modern Rigden Farm development, as the Appellant himself noted at the Conceptual Review at the November 18, 2009 Landmark Preservation Commission meeting. This would adversely affect the farm buildings'ability to be recognized as a physical record of their historic time,and create a false sense of the time in which the buildings were constructed and the methods and materials used in their construction. Standard Number 5 states: "Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved." Staff believes that the proposed work does not meet Standard Number 5, as it involves altering and covering distinctive materials and features, specifically the historic siding that covers all four of the exterior walls of the landmarked structures. This Standard requires that the distinctive features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship shall be preserved visually, as well as physically. Covering a historic structure or its distinctive features with a new material and removing the original material from sight does not fulfill the meaning of this Standard. Standard Number 6 states: "Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence." Staff believes that the proposed work does not meet this Standard. The material's level of deterioration is fairly minimal, and is certainly not to the extent that full replacement is needed. The exterior walls and their historic wood fabric are distinctive historic features that should be repaired, as needed, rather than replaced or covered with a new exterior of materials that do not match the historic materials in kind. Standard Number 9 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 shall 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." Staff believes the proposed work does not meet this Standard because the proposed exterior alterations will destroy historic materials and could lead to damage to the historic structures from nails, moisture penetration and vermin infestation that could not be easily detected. Standard Number 10 states: "New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a mannerthat, if removed in the future,the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired." Staff believes the proposed project does not meet this Standard since the proposed new construction could not be removed without damage to the historic property, and, if it is removed, the historic windows, a character defining feature, would no longer exist. f. The Appellant alleges that the Landmark Preservation Commission failed to correctly apply the criteria in Chapter 14, Article lll, Section 14-48(b)(5), of the City Code, because the Commission failed to support its findings with specific findings of facts. In support of its decision the Commission states that the project meets Standard Number 1 which provides that"A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships." The Appellant maintains that the current use of the property requires different maintenance requirements;and that the Commission's justification for denying the proposed work is excessive because it ignores the new use of the structures and this imposes along term cost constraint and feasibility problem. The Appellant alleges that, in support of its decision regarding Standard Number 2, the Commission stated the proposed work would remove the historic windows and would cover historic features that characterize the property. The Appellant maintains that there are no features that "characterize the property" that would be lost as a result of the window replacements or non-historic siding, and that the Commission failed to state why replacing the windows or installing the siding diminishes the provisions of Standard 2. Staffs response: The Commission did not err. The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation provides the ability to allow repairs, alterations, and additions, as long as those portions or features which convey a building's historical, cultural and architectural values are preserved. The minutes of the December 9, 2009 Hearing demonstrate the importance that the Landmark Preservation Commission placed on retaining the historic wood windows, as well as the original siding. An important tenet of Historic Preservation is authenticity. Replacing the historic windows and covering the February 16 2010 -10- ITEM 23 barn over with cement siding,when repairs are feasible and energy-efficient interior storm windows and in-kind wood siding are readily available, does not meet Standard Number 2, as it would significantly alter the building's historic materials and features. STAFF SUMMARY The Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm buildings are an officially recognized Landmark property,designated by Council action on November 7, 2000. Therefore, as provided for in Chapter 14 of the City Code, staff believes that the Landmark Preservation Commission does have the authority to consider actions affecting these buildings. Staff believes that the Landmark Preservation Commission did not fail to hold a fair hearing, as alleged by the Appellant, and further,thatthe Commission did notfail to properly interpret and apply the provisions contained in Section 14-48(b) of the City Code in making its decision in regards to this item. RELEVANT CODE PROVISIONS The applicable Code provision for the Council to review is Section 14-48. Section 14-48(a) introduces the subject by stating that applications should be evaluated as to whether the proposed work is of a nature that will not erode the authenticity or destroy any distinctive exterior feature of the historic structure. Subsection (b) is the criteria that the Commission is to use in making that evaluation. Sec. 14-48. Approval of proposed work. (a) If upon the receipt of an application... the Commission finds that the proposed work is of a nature which will not erode the authenticity or destroy any distinctive exterior feature or characteristic... (b) In determining the decision to be made concerning the issuance of a report of acceptability,the Commission shall consider the following criteria: (1) The effect of the proposed work upon the general historical and/or architectural character of the landmark or landmark district; (2) The architectural style, arrangement,texture and materials of existing and proposed improvements, and their relation to the sites, structures and objects in the district; (3) The effects of the proposed work in creating, changing or destroying the exterior characteristics of the site, structure or object upon which such work is to be done; (4) The effect of the proposed work upon the protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of the landmark or landmark district; (5) The extent to which the proposed work meets the standards of the city and the United States Secretary of the Interiorthen in effect for the preservation, reconstruction,restoration or rehabilitation of historic resources. Below are the ten Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation: 1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place,and use.Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. 4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. February 16 2010 -11- ITEM 23 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved. 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature,the new feature shall match the old in design,color,texture,and other visual qualities and,where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. 8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future,the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Council should consider the appeal based upon the record and relevant provisions of the Code and Charter, and after consideration, either: 1. Remand the decision if the Council finds that the Commission failed to conduct a fair hearing; or 2. Uphold oroverturn the Commission's decision depending upon whetherthe Council finds that the Commission either did, or did not, properly interpret and apply the provisions of Section 14-48 of the City Code; or 3. Remand the decision for further consideration of additional issues raised on appeal. ATTACHMENTS 1. City Clerk's Notice of Appeal Hearing. 2. Notice of Appeal 3. Landmark Preservation Commission Conceptual and Final Review Packet—December 9, 2009 -Staff Memo - Photographs - Letter from Rigden Farm Master Association 4. Landmark Preservation Commission Conceptual/Final Review Hearing Verbatim Transcript—December 9, 2009 5. Photographs and graphics of the barn presented by the Appellant at the November 18, 2009 Landmark Preservation Commission Hearing. NOTE: A sample of"Hardie Plank" material and paint sample will be available at the Hearing. 6. Rigden Farm Petition, submitted by Appellant, Mike Schwab, on February 9, 2010. 7. Powerpoint presentation ATTACHMENT City Clerk's Notice of Appeal Hearing City Clerk's Office City Of Fort Collins 300 LaPorteAvenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins,ns COCO 80522 970.221.6515 970.221.6295-fax fcgov.com/cityclerk NOTICE The City Council of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado,on Tuesday,February 16,2010,at 6:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may come on for hearing in the Council Chambers in the City Hall at 300 LaPorte Avenue,will hold a public hearing on the appeal from the decisions of the Landmark Preservation Commission on November 18 and December 9, 2009 regarding property located at 2902 Rigden Parkway, Fort Collins, CO 80525. If you wish to comment on this matter,you are strongly urged to attend the hearing on this appeal. If you have any questions or require further information please feel free to contact the City Clerk's Office (970-221-6515) or the Current Planning Department(970-221-6760). Any written materials that any party-in-interest may wish the City Council to consider in deciding the appeal shall be submitted to the City Clerk no later than 12:00 p.m.on Wednesday,February 10 [Section 2-54(b)of the City Code]. Agenda materials provided to the City Council,including City staff s response to the Notice of Appeal,and any additional issues identified by any party-in-interest, will be available to the public on Thursday, February 11, after 2:00 p.m. in the City Clerk's Office and on the City's website at: http://www.fcgov.com/cityclerk/agendas.php. 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 the City Clerk's Office(970-221-6515;TDD 970-224-6001)for assistance. Wanda M. Krajicek City Clerk Date Notice Mailed: February 1, 2010 cc: City Attorney Chair, Landmark Preservation Commission Appellant/Applicant ATTACHMENT Notice of Appeal REC-F-1 'F y' DEC 23 2009 NOTICE OF APPEAL CITY CkERKIS OFFICE 1. This notice of appeal by the Board of Directors of the Rigden Farm Master Association ("Appellant") to the City of Fort Collins City Council for relief from the actions taken Nov. 18 and Dec. 9, 2009, by the Landmark Preservation Commission ("Commission") with regards to property located at 2902 Rigden Parkway, Fort Collins, CO 80525. The owner's representative is Mike Schwab whose address is 363 W. Drake Road, Suite 3, Fort Collins, CO 80526, Phone No. (970) 226-1324. 2. The Appellant has standing to appeal the final decision of the Landmark Preservation Commission as a party-in-interest for the following reasons: (1) The Appellant was the applicant of the Landmark Preservation Commission request for design review held on November 18, 2009, and the second hearing on December 9, 2009; (2) The Appellant has a proprietary and/or possessory interest in the real or personal property which was the subject of the decision of the Commission whose action is the subject of this appeal; (3) The Appellant sent written comments to the Commission prior to the action which is the subject of this appeal; (4) The Appellant was the Applicant who appeared before the Commission at the hearing on the action which is the subject of this appeal; B. Grounds for the appeal. The Appellant believes that the Commission committed the following errors: The support given by the Commission for its decisions has no basis or beneficial purpose to the community or the property owner. The Appellant believes the property has been improperly designated and has argued to the Commission numerous reasons why its designation as a historical landmark should be terminated. Below are some of the main points why the property should not be a historical landmark. • The property was removed from its historical location to accommodate the widening of Drake Road, which was a separate project from the Rigden Farm PDP. See Landmark Preservation Commission, Regular Meeting Minutes, May 12, 1999, page 4, first paragraph. The Commission needed to determine where the structures should be moved and where the structures would still be eligible for local landmark designation when moved. This is pertinent because the Commission further questions whether the structures maintained the inter of the farm once moved. The integrity was based on the location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association of the farm. It is the 1 Appellant's belief this is a case of inverse condemnation where the City of Fort Collins has overreached it's authority by imposing unreasonable restrictions on property owners who in good faith are protecting the integrity of their property and keeping the community a better place to live in. • The property buildings are configured closer than the original site destroying the spatial relationship that characterized the old historical farm site. • The property is isolated within a modern residential subdivision. 1. The Commission failed to roperly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter. a. The Commission incorrectly applied the criteria for the proposed work under Chapter 14, Article III, Section 14-48(b), of the City Code and standards of the city and the United States Secretary of the Interior for the preservation, reconstruction, restoration or rehabilitation of historic resources and failed to support their finding with specific findings of facts. i. In support of its decision the Commission states that "the proposed work would alter and diminish the historical and architectural character of the landmark buildings." This is a general finding without any supportive facts specifying why the proposed work would alter and diminish the historical and architectural character of the landmark buildings. How does the type of materials to be used cause damage? What is it that diminishes the historical and architectural character? What about the new materials alters the historical and architectural character of the structures? ii. In support of its decision the Commission states "that the proposed covering of the historic fabric and associated features with a skin, and removing historic windows, will adversely affect the arrangement, texture and materials of the existing historic buildings, and their consistency and relationship to each other, which is not in accordance with Chapter 14, Article III(b)(2)." The proposed work does reflect the existing texture and materials and their consistence and relationship to each other are identical and any adverse affect is minimal. iii. In support of its decision the Commission states "That the proposed work is not in accordance with Chapter 14, Article (b)(3), as covering the historic structure with new materials, as proposed, would give the buildings an appearance similar to the non-historic structures in the modern Rigden Farm development, adversely affecting the buildings'ability to be recognized as a physical record of their true, historic time, and would instead create a false sense of the time in which the buildings were constructed and which they are 2 purported to reflect." The Staff believes the proposed work would change or destroy character defining features of the landmark buildings. Specifically, the Staff believes the proposed work would alter or destroy the original fabric of the historic windows, and alter the historic appearance of the structures' exterior wood siding, which would be hidden under a new skin. In addition, the Staff believes placing new skin over the existing historic structures could lead to unwarranted damage to the historic structures, from nails, moisture penetration and vermin infestation that could not be easily detected. This support and the Staff reasoning are unfounded and the opposite is true. The reason for the proposed work is to repair the existing damage caused by water, rot, and flicker holes. In addition, the proposed material not only appears to be the same as the existing materials it is designed to prevent the damages the Commission and Staff are alleging may occur in the future. Any material used to repair this damage would be new materials and would have the same affect. The proposed materials match the existing materials but have the added advantage of providing the protections against flicker, water and wood rot damage to the buildings. The proposition that the skin covering"may" cause the aforementioned damage to the building is speculative, unfounded and without proof. iv. In support of its decision the Commission states "that the proposed work is not in accordance with Chapter 14, Article III(b)(4)placing new skin over the existing historic structures could lead to unwarranted damage to the historic structures,from nails, moisture penetration and vermin infestation that could not be easily detected." The same argument/reasoning stated in paragraph iii above apply to this finding by the Commission as well. v. In support of its decision the Commission states "that the proposed work is not in accordance with accordance with Chapter 14, Article III(b)(5) because it does not meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. The Commission further states that specifically, the proposed work does not meet Standard Number 2, 3, 5, 6, 9 and 10. " vi. The Commission feels the project meets Standard Number 1 which provides: The Property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and special relationships. This is a fundamental issue which dictates how the Commission should answer the remaining Standards. The new use is nothing like the historical farm from which the structures where removed. The new use of the property requires different maintenance requirements which may cause minimal changes to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and special relationships to the community. The Commission's justification for denying approval of the proposed work is excessive because they are imposing restrictions ignoring the new use of the structures. This imposes a long term cost constraint and feasibility problems for 3 the property owners. See December hearing and arguments on excessive costs to comply with Commission requirements. Standard Number 2 the Commission states the proposed work would remove the historic windows and it would cover features that characterize the property. The proposed work provides that dividing rods would be installed in the windows to keep the historical look of the windows and there are no features that "characterize the property" that would be covered as a result of the window replacements. The Commission fails to state why replacing the windows or installing the siding diminishes the provisions of Standard 2. The Commission fails to support with facts the damages that they claim may result from the siding and replacement of the windows except to state that "the proposed exterior alterations will destroy historic materials and could lead to damage to the historic structure from nails, moisture penetration and vermin infestation that could not be easily detected." This is entirely speculative, the truth is that the alterations are to fix and prevent the damage caused by moisture penetration and vermin infestation. b. The Appellant were misled by City staff on several points and believe their view of the code has skewed how the Commission interprets the Secretary of the Interiors Standards. Two examples of this; the Applicant were informed by both Pam Opiela and Karen McWilliams that economics can not be a factor in their decisions, this is contradictory to what the standards say. The Standards provide that, "The Standards are to be applied to specific rehabilitation projects in a reasonable manner, taking into consideration economic and technical feasibility." The second example is when the Applicant was informed that there are grants available to help offset the costs of maintenance and that they didn't need to be paid back until the property was sold. After checking the language of the grant it says non-profits must pay back the money within 5 years. The difference in treatment for repayment between non-profit and for-profit entities appears to have no justifiable reason. 2. Failure to conduct a fair hearing in that. a. The Commission exceeded its authority and/or jurisdiction as contained in the Code or Charter by applying its Code and Regulations on property that has not been explained or supported with specific facts or evidence. b. The Commission failed to consider evidence relevant to its findings because the information was not provided prior to the hearing and was too technical for an adequate review at the hearing. It appeared at the meeting on Dec. 5 that the LPC was receiving the information for the first time the night of the meeting therefore they were not able to give our material proper consideration and solely relied on the information provided by City staff for their decision. 4 CONCLUSION The Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties provide in their preamble that choosing the most appropriate treatment for a building requires careful decision-making about the building's historical significance, as well taking into account a number of other considerations. Among the other considerations mentioned is the relative importance in history, physical condition, and the proposed use of the landmark. The farm structures themselves are not rare or the work of a master architect or craftsman. Numerous barns and similar structures can be found in Northern Colorado and throughout the Midwest. The proposed work is to maintain the buildings well into the future in accordance with the new use of the structures. The use as a club house requires that it does not continue to deteriorate by water and vermin damage and eventually go to waste to the point where rehabilitation is not possible. The new use requires different measures to adequately protect the physical condition of the property. The new use of the structures as a club house for community meetings is not anything like the historical use as a dusty cold barn. The new use requires that the structure be somewhat energy efficient and be protected from the elements which is not the construction practices of the past. The rehabilitation of the barn with new siding and windows has been proposed to be done in a manner that reflects and retains the historical character of the building as much as feasible. Appellant: Board of Directors of the Rigden Farm Master Association. By: � Mike Schwab, Owner's Representative 5 ATTACHMENT Agenda Materials Provided to the Landmark Preservation Commmission City of Advance Planning 281 North College Avenue PO Box ort Collins 9Fort 0 21.6376080522 970.224.6111 -fax fcgov.com/advanceplanning LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION December 9, 2009 STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Buildings, 2902 Rigden Parkway CONTACT: Pam Opiela, Historic Preservation Planner APPLICANT: Mike Schwab, Rigden Farm HOA REQUEST: Design Review—Conceptual and Final, Fort Collins Landmark Install new windows and cover exterior with new siding BACKGROUND: The Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm buildings date to the late 1910,s and early 1920's. The distinctive masonry farmhouse and gambrel roofed barn were both built in 1919. The farm is comprised of a Craftsman style residence, a barn, a garage, a chicken coop, and a bunk house. The buildings were moved from a nearby location to accommodate modern development projects and a City Capital Project to widen Timberline Road. The historic buildings are at the center of the modern Rigden Farm development. At their current location, they were designated Fort Collins landmarks in November 2000 for their architectural significance. Proposed changes to Fort Collins Landmarks are reviewed by the Landmark Preservation Commission under Chapter 14, Article III of the Municipal code. The barn and other buildings at Rigden Farm are in relatively good condition. They do need some minor repair work and paint. The barn is in use as a meeting room. Mr. Schwab has expressed concern with the cost of maintaining the buildings, The proposed work will be reviewed under Chapter 14, Article III of the Municipal Code, specifically Section 14-48, which states, "In determining the decision to be made concerning the issuance of a report of acceptability, the Commission shall consider the following criteria:" "(1) The effect of the proposed work upon the general historical and/or architectural character of the landmark or landmark district;" Staff finds the proposed work would change the historical and architectural character of the landmarked buildings. 11(2) The architectural style, arrangement, texture and materials of existing and proposed improvements, and their relation to the sites, structures and objects in the district;" Staff finds the proposed work's relationship to the landmark's buildings is as a covering to the features that give the buildings their historic character. of F„ City Collins 11(3) The effects of the proposed work in creating, changing or destroying the exterior characteristics of the site, structure or object upon which such work is to be done;" Staff finds that the proposed work would change and/or destroy some of the character defining features of the landmarked buildings. Specifically, the proposed work would change the historic windows and the historic appearance of the structures' exterior wood siding, which would be completely covered. In addition, placing a new face over the existing historic structures could lead to damage to the historic structures from moisture penetration and vermin infestation that could not be easily detected. "(4) The effect of the proposed work upon the protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of the landmark or landmark district;" Staff finds that placing a new face over the existing historic structure could lead to damage to the historic structures and their character defining features from moisture penetration and vermin infestation that could not be easily detected. 11(5) The extent to which the proposed work meets the standards of the city and the United States Secretary of the Interior then in effect for the preservation, reconstruction, restoration or rehabilitation of historic resources." All ten of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation must be met for a proposal to meet the Standards. Below are the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and the staff s findings on whether this project meets the Standards: 1) A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. Staff finds that the project could meet this Standard. 2) The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. Staff finds the proposed project does not meet this Standard, since it would remove the historic windows and it would cover features that characterize the property. 3) Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. Staff finds that the project would not meet this Standard since, as the applicant stated at the November 18, 2000 Landmark Preservation Commission meeting, covering the historic structures with new materials, as proposed, would give the buildings the same appearance as the non-historic structures in the modern Rigden Farm development that surrounds the landmarked buildings. 2 �of t Collins 4) Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. Staff finds Standard number 4 is not applicable to this project. 5) Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved. Staff finds that the proposed work does not meet this Standard since it would remove the historic windows, and it would cover other distinctive features, specifically the historic siding that covers the facades and all other exterior walls of the landmarked structures. This Standard means that the distinctive features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved visually, as well as physically. Covering a historic structure or its distinctive features so that they are removed from sight does not preserve the historic features, etc. as specified in this Standard. 6) Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and,where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. Staff finds that the proposed work does not meet this Standard since historic windows would be removed rather than replaced. The exterior walls and their materials are distinctive features that should be repaired rather than replaced with a new exterior of materials that do not match the historic materials. 7) Chemical or physical treatments; such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Staff finds Standard number 7 is not applicable to this project. 8) Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. Staff finds Standard number 8 is not applicable to this project. 9) New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. Staff finds the proposed work does not meet this Standard since the new work would not be differentiated from the old, and because constructing a new exterior over the existing historic buildings could lead to damage to the historic structures from moisture penetration and vermin infestation that could not be easily detected. 3 `ort Collins 10)New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. Staff finds the proposed project does not meet this Standard since the proposed new construction could not be removed without impacting the historic property, and if it is removed, the historic windows, a character defining feature, would no longer exist, and the historic exterior walls would be left to deteriorate, possibly destroying their integrity. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the proposal be rejected because it does not meet Chapter 14, Article III of the Municipal code since Staff finds the proposed work is not in accordance with Chapter 14, Article III (b) (1) because it would change the historical and architectural character of the landmarked buildings. Staff finds the proposed work's relationship to the landmark's buildings is as a covering to the features that give the buildings their historic character, which is not in accordance with Chapter 14, Article III (b) (2). Staff finds that the proposed work is not in accordance with Chapter 14, Article III (b) (3) would change and/or destroy some of the character defining features of the landmarked buildings. Specifically, the proposed work would change the historic windows and the historic appearance of the structures' exterior wood siding, which would be completely covered. In addition, placing a new face over the existing historic structures could lead to damage to the historic structures from moisture penetration and vermin infestation that could not be easily detected. Staff finds the proposed work is not in accordance with Chapter 14, Article III (b) (4) because placing a new face over the existing historic structure could lead to damage to the historic structures and their character defining features from moisture penetration and vermin infestation that could not be easily detected. Staff finds the proposed work is not in accordance with Chapter 14, Article III (b) (5) because it does not meet all ten of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Specifically, staff finds that the proposed work does not meet Standard number 2, since it would remove the historic windows and it would cover features that characterize the property., Standard number 3, since, as the applicant stated at the November 18, 2009 Landmark Preservation Commission meeting, covering the historic structures with new materials, as proposed, would give the buildings the same appearance as the non- historic structures in the modern Rigden Farm development that surrounds the landmarked buildings. Standard number 5, since it would remove the historic windows, and it would cover other distinctive features, specifically the historic siding that covers the facades and all 4 `ort Collins other exterior walls of the landmarked structures. This Standard means that the distinctive features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved visually, as well as physically. Covering a historic structure or its distinctive features so that they are removed from sight does not preserve the historic features, etc. as specified in this Standard. Standard number 6, since historic windows would be removed rather than replaced. The exterior walls and their materials are distinctive features that should be repaired rather than replaced with a new exterior of materials that do not match the historic materials. Standard number 9, since the new work would not be differentiated from the old, and because constructing a new exterior over the existing historic buildings could lead to damage to the historic structures from moisture penetration and vermin infestation that could not be easily detected. Standard number 10, since the proposed new construction could not be removed without impacting the historic property;and if it is removed, the historic windows, a character defining feature, would no longer exist, and the historic exterior walls would be left to deteriorate, possibly destroying their integrity. In addition, the applicant's request should be rejected because the proposed work would negatively affect the integrity of the Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Buildings, since it would destroy the historic look, feel, and association of the buildings in the complex. 5 b •, �r , � o- to,11 ,6: Ivf -y � fj VPoko- r — ` � - " s tpM x . ` I +Ma ! r � � a a e . „ t "`•- `' '� '� '" ' ' 'fir"' ,,: , i It 4A - ,r,,.. _ . Iot` .` �T Jessup/ Johnson Barn at : h Jessup/Johnson Barn / \ 2902 Rigden Parkway May , 2001 N Y ,�Ss�p � John� Fvx�mhtsuu, )C40 a Ma'j �00 t low IIA! " ram•, v. �. l. . �== � - -- ILI. i INV non El illf all Jessup/ Johnson Farmhouse 2902 Rigden Parkway May , 2001 �:- �1 �.,,' e !: . 1 kv .. 1✓. ]NOW fft:AqIIFWL �:4 - - s ••_ L . i . .. c . .[ z�-� ' Im► "y"" a� �i . air Y:} � 't. ,* Jesse p f Johnson 2n (2 r t . �12� 1 Alf ` • ''fir, •T - ' , •Y�� �_ - -_ _ - - ` '���- `r _ � ���_ _ __ _.' �� � -� - ,� _= - _ . - � J {%' a ti t;- �' .. p1Y > I ti • �•�� ' �� w � �!' '- . r y � �+ �' ' 0�� qy � � I I I '�' � r t �� - __ _" "' ----sue � _ -_ _ - , � .4 _ - - ` _} -' j r` Letter from Ridgen Farm Master Association The Board of Directors would like the Landmark Preservation Commission to reconsider the decision to reject the Rigden Farm Master Association proposal. The following explains the basis for Board's position. 1. The Rigden Farm buildings were actually designated as a Landmark after they were moved. According to The Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation,moving the buildings violates#1, 92, and especially#3 of the standards. Therefore,these buildings should not be considered landmark buildings. The information below in italics is directly from the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation web site regarding the moving of buildings. These items are considered practices not recommended: Removing or radically changing buildings and their features or site features which are important in defining the overall Historic character of*the property so that, as a result, the character is diminished. Removing or relocating buildings or landscape features thus destroying the historic relationship between buildings and the landscape. Removing or relocating historic buildings on a site or in a complex of related historic structures--such as a mill complex or./arm--thus diminishing the historic character of the site or complex. Moving buildings onto the site, thus creating a false historical appearance. Removing or radically changing those,features of the setting which are important in defining the historic character. Destroying the relationship between the buildings and landscape features within the setting by widening existing streets, changing landscape materials or constructing inappropriately located new street or parking. Removing or relocating historic buildings or landscape features, thus destroying their historic relationship within the setting. Since these buildings have been moved and therefore would not be eligible for a State or National listing, the determination on how best to maintain them should not fall underneath the Sec. of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. We do not believe the Commission should have maintenance decision authority over the 2000 plus residents and commercial property owners that make up Rigden Master HOA. 2. The main grounds mentioned for the rejection of the proposal is standard#2. We believe our proposal will maintain the historic character of the property. The character of the Barn is due to the gambrel roof, the cupola, and the open soffit.None of these features are being changed. i i I I Letter from Ridgen Farm Master Association 3. Once again in standard #5, the distinctive features are being maintained. 4. In response to standard#6, it is a financial hardship for the HOA to repair with the same material. We have a material that will give the same look as the current siding but will actually help preserve the structures. It also requires much less long term maintenance. As per the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation website, "The Standards are to be applied to spec0c rehabilitation projects in a reasonable manner, taking into consideration economic and technical feasibility." We believe the alternative recommendations made are not economically feasible. 5. 49 and#10 do not apply to our situation. i ATTACHMENT Verbatim Transcript of Hearing December 9, 2009 LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting December 9, 2009 Council Liaison: Mr. David Roy (407-7393) Staff Liaison: Mr. Joe Frank(221-6376) Commission Chairperson: Ian Shuff Verbatim Transcript of Hearing CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Commission was called to order by Chair Shuff with a quorum present at 5:40 p.m. at 281 N. College Ave., Fort Collins, Colorado. Ian Shuff, John Albright, Alan Ballou, Sondra Carson, Bud Frick, and Terence Hoaglund were present. Earen Russell was absent. Karen McWilliams, Preservation Planner, represented City staff. Steve Dush, Director, Community Development and Neighborhood Services, was also present. Verbatim Minutes of the Design Review for 2902 Rigden Parkway, Henry Jessup/ Cal Johnson Farm Buildings, Conceptual/Final Review of Proposed Alterations— Mike Schwab Rigden Farm HOA Mr. Shuff: All right. Next item. Design Review. The 2902 Rigden Parkway, Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Buildings Ms. McWilliams: I would like to introduce again Mike Schwab. He is part of[the Rigden Farm Home Owners' Association]. Mr. Schwab: I am the HOA manager. Ms. McWilliams: You're the manager of the Rigden Farm Homeowners Association. This is the Conceptual and Final Design Review of a Fort Collins Landmark, and the request is to install new windows and to cover the exterior of the buildings with new siding. The Commission did see this item at their November 18' meeting, but since that time Mike has pulled together some information in a letter, which is attached on the back of the application, and has asked to come back before the Board. The background is that the Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Buildings date to the late 1910's and early 1920's. The farm is comprised of a Craftsman style residence, a barn, a garage, a chicken coop, and a bunk house. The distinctive masonry farmhouse and the gambrel roofed wood barn were both built in 1919. These [all five farm buildings] are the buildings that used to be located at the southwest comer of Drake and Timberline Roads, and were moved to accommodate the Rigden Farm Development Project and the widening of Timberline Road. They are now located in the center of the Rigden Farm Development, which is predominantly residential in that area. At their current location, after the move, they were designated as Fort Collins Landmarks in November of 2000, for their architectural significance. The barn and other buildings at Rigden Farm are in relatively good condition. Pam Opiela went out and did a site visit in November, I believe. They do need some minor repair work and paint. The barn is in use as a meeting room. Landmark Preservation Commission—Verbatim Transcript of Hearing December 9, 2009 The applicant, Mr. Schwab, has expressed concern with the cost of maintaining the buildings, and, as I pointed out,a letter from the Rigden Farm Board of Directors is attached. As with all Fort Collins' Landmarks, proposed changes are reviewed by the Landmark Preservation Commission under Chapter 14, Article III, of the City Code. Chapter 14, Article III, specifically Section 14-48(B), addresses approval of proposed work, and it states that in determining the decision to be made concerning the issuance of a report of acceptability, the Commission shall consider the following criteria. Then it lists five standards that the Commission, or five criteria that the Commission evaluates in making their findings. Since the Commission is just receiving this, I will go through each one quickly. The Criteria Number One is the effect of the proposed work upon the general, historical and architectural character of the landmark or landmark district. Number Two is the architectural style, arrangement, texture and materials of existing and proposed improvements, and their relation to the site, structures and objects in the district. Criterion Three says, the effects of the proposed work in creating, changing or destroying the exterior characteristics of the site, structure or object upon which such work is to be done. [Ms. McWilliams' staff report was missing alternate pages.] I certainly hope that yours has the full set. Some Board members indicated yes. Ms. McWilliams: My copy is missing page two. How many people are missing page 2? I apologize for this. We were making the copies upstairs and some of them must not have gotten done. Comments were made by various Commission members about which pages were missing. It appeared the even numbered pages were not in the packet. Arrangements were discussed to provide complete copies after the conclusion of the staff report. Ms. McWilliams: Okay. Criterion Four refers to the effect of the proposed work upon the protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of the landmark or landmark district. Number Five refers to the extent which the proposed work meets the standards of the city and the United States Secretary of the Interior then in effect for preservation, reconstruction, restoration or rehabilitation, and those ten Secretary of the Interior Standards. In this case, the treatment that would apply would be Rehabilitation, which is adapting the buildings to new uses and making alterations consistent with their new use, and those Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation [are]: Standard 1. The property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. Standard 2. The historic character of the property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alterations of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize the property will be avoided. Standard 3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties will not be undertaken. - 2 - Landmark Preservation Commission—Verbatim Transcript of Hearing December 9, 2009 Standard 4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significant in their own right will be retained and preserved. Standard 5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques, or examples of craftsmanship that characterize the property will be preserved. Standard 6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. Standard 7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. Standard 8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. Nine, which refers to new additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction, will not destroy historical materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. New work shall 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. And finally, Standard 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. Staff does recommend that the application be denied, as it does not meet Chapter 14, Article III of the City Code and the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation; and also recommends that if the Commission is inclined to agree with staff, that it adopt in support of its decisions findings, which we will put here in front of you in just a few minutes. Let me go ahead and make sure that we get these copies, present them, and let's take a minute for everybody to go through the Staff Report. Pause while copies were made. Ms. McWilliams: Okay. You can go ahead and pass these around. If everyone will take just one and then pass them on. And then, Mike, here is yours. If everybody, again, will just take one and then pass the rest around. If there are extras, I'll collect them. Okay. Each Commission member should have a four page Staff Report and then a single, double sided page of a letter from the Rigden Farm Board of Directors. Mr. Hoaglund: I don't have that. There were various comments that page 2 was missing. Ms. McWilliams: Are there extra copies of the handout? Okay. Terence--do you have any extras over there? Mr. Hoaglund: I don't see any. Further discussion regarding if everyone had page 2. Mr. Shuff: Does the Board need to read the letter (couldn't understand rest of comment). Mr. Shuff: Would the applicant like to make a presentation, or... Mr. Schwab: Yeah, back again at the direction of the Board of Directors of Rigden Farm HOA, and they point out kind of what their position is in this letter. One thing that kind of has changed since I met with you last was brought up in the last meeting about the interior storm windows. We think that could definitely be a possibility, so that, that - 3 - Landmark Preservation Commission—Verbatim Transcript of Hearing December 9, 2009 we could, you know, do that rather than replace the existing windows. So, there's room on the inside of the structure for that to happen that wouldn't affect anything on the inside. They still definitely want to go ahead with the siding, with the Hardie Plank System. The reason for that is what we mentioned first of all, the cost savings to the HOA. When we did a study on a long term maintenance, we're looking at about $1900 a year going with that system versus around, I believe it was around $4,000 a year to do the regular maintenance as far as repair, replace, and the extra painting and that that's involved with the project. So, they still believe that there's an economic consideration that needs to, and the main point that they would like to see addressed is number one, that as far as authority, whether that authority does rest with this board or not, and the reason we're here is because you evidently think that it does, so they would like that point clarified, and then number 2, one of the things they believe is that the product they have picked very closely matches almost identical to what is currently on the board on the barn. So, the look will be almost exactly the same even with the product with the wood grain, except it won't be wood. So, we're not changing any architectural elements on the barn. If you look at pictures where you see like the hay lofts and things like that, the old barn doors, those will look exactly like they look now. So,just with a protective covering over the masonry. So, that is what we are asking for. Mr. Shuff: Would the board like to have any discussion? Mr. Albright: I have some comments. I gather you're saying that they should not be considered landmark buildings because they've been moved. Do I understand that, therefore, these buildings should not be considered landmark buildings? Mr. Schwab: Right. Mr. Albright: Well, let me, very quickly, and this won't be exact, let me give you six buildings that have been moved and are on the National Register. Hamilton Grange, the home of Alexander Hamilton in New York City; George Washington birthplace moved three times; the building, Grant-Kohrs Ranch buildings in Montana, moved all over the place; the Englewood, Colorado, Railroad Station moved farther than these buildings were moved in Fort Collins; the McLean House where Lee surrendered to Grant at the end of the Civil War was not only moved, it was sent to Chicago to the Columbia Exposition and brought back and reassembled. It's thought to be about 20% authentic; and then Grant's Headquarters, his little cabin he had during the Petersburg campaign, was moved, sent to Philadelphia, put in a park for the 1876 Columbian exposition, sent back; and they're all on the National Register. So, the fact that buildings were moved really does not keep them from the National Register. The National Register doesn't like to move a building if they can, and if a building's been moved they like to look carefully at it. But, it can still be listed. Mr. Shuff: The other side of that is the fact was that the local nomination was done after it was moved on to the site, and so, I think unfortunately, the way we have to look at it is that almost doesn't have any ruling in our review of that because of that factor,. If it was made eligible before the move, then it would definitely be a different situation because, I think there is some compromise in that before it was moved, but the fact that this was done after the move, I guess at least for me and the board I have a hard time then taking that into account as far as (couldn't hear part of the sentence) to have an excuse why we shouldn't be following the Standards. - 4 - Landmark Preservation Commission—Verbatim Transcript of Hearing December 9, 2009 Ms. McWilliams: So you're pointing it out because the buildings were designated in 2000 after they were moved to their new location. Mr. Shuff: Right. They were designated on their, at their current site. Mr. Albright: No, the National Register Standards don't require that the landscape relationship to the structures not be altered, but they strongly work that it should be, but they're always willing to make exceptions. Like I say, I just gave you six. Mr. Shuff: Do you want to have a discussion on, I guess, to talk about your letter, Item No. 2, based on the Standards, and, I think, you know, your offer, from my point of view, your offer to keep the windows is very important. Mr. Albright: I think it is too. Mr. Shuff: The windows are probably, you know, besides the roof form and the base, its barn, you know, it's got barn doors. The windows are probably the biggest architectural significant thing about that barn, and the barn doors, I think, they are just as high, you know, obviously, the skin of the building is probably the step down from there, but it's also gets into the skin of the building has the biggest scale of that whole thing. It's the most visible thing of the whole building because there's so much of it. So, it does have some weight, and I think that's really, you know, obviously where, that's where you guys really want to make your exception to the Standards is replace the siding. Mr. Albright: Your concept is to clad the existing exterior with a new exterior, and the new exterior would be wood grain but it wouldn't be the finished kind of lap siding that is on there now, is that right? Mr. Schwab: No, it would be, it's Hardie Point, it's a cement product. But, it's going to look, to mimic the look of the current lap siding. Mr. Albright: We were concerned about the weight: Has that been taken into account? Mr. Schwab: Yeah, and that, we've actually had several different engineers look at it, and that's why we are going over the top rather than tear off the existing siding. And, we're actually going to wrap it first, it will be wrapped, and then it will be, this product will be put over the wrap. Mr. Albright: Now, the windows then would have a different relationship to the siding. They would be in, somewhat--recessed. Mr. Schwab: Yeah, by, by what, whatever the thickness of the siding is-1/4" Mr. Albright: But it would look like lap siding but made of concrete. Mr. Schwab: Right. Mr. Albright: Cement, sorry. Mr. Hoaglund: Are you proposing on replacing all the trim work around the windows and doors? Mr. Schwab: Yeah, that will all be replaced when it's done. Mr. Hoaglund: That will all be replaced, not just covered over. Mr. Schwab: It already looks, if you look at the pictures of the west side of the barn now compared to what it was before it was moved to the site, when it was moved to the site it just had a garage door in it that I'm aware of and that's been replaced with actually that is a false barn door on there. (Couldn't understand his last brief comment.) Ms. McWilliams: The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation do allow alterations for buildings if they are warranted. They do always recommend, number one, to always retain historic fabric whenever feasible or possible, to repair rather than to - 5 - Landmark Preservation Commission—Verbatim Transcript of Hearing December 9, 2009 replace, but they do offer some leeway and talk about reasonable accommodations for things such as ADA accessibility, in terms of, you know, to consider economics and technical issues. There are times when, to do a building properly, to restore it or retain a historic part of the material it literally becomes absolutely economically unfeasible, or it's technologically impossible sometimes. The materials are no longer made or, you know, conditions have changed enough that it's not feasible. So, there is some leeway in the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. Mr. Shuff: Any more comments? Discussion. Any public input? Mr. Doug Ernest: Just a curiosity question. Are there other local landmarks that have been designated kind of before or after having been moved? For example, I know that the Webster House, which is on North Meldrum Street. I know it's kind of a historic home. I don't know if it's a Landmark. I thought it had been moved. Just a general framework type of thing. Is that, is that, are there instances? Ms. McWilliams: There are other instances. The Webster House is not one of them. It has been moved, and they altered the building so extensively that it no longer qualifies in its current location. The Cunningham Corner Barn is one that was moved and then designated following the move. I'm sure there's a couple more that aren't coming right to mind. Mr. Hoaglund: Just out of curiosity. The Cunningham Corner Barn had similar siding issues. I know it's moved, but I don't know anything about it beyond that. Mr. Albright: That's a good point. Ms. McWilliams: That-is a good point. The property owners are just doing routine maintenance. Mr. Hoaglund: It's a very similar structure. Ms. McWilliams: Very similar. They've not needed to come in for Rehab Zero Interest Loans, or for any other maintenance issues. Mr Shuff: All right. Do we have a motion? Mr. Hoaglund: I will. I move to deny the application for alteration at 2902 Rigden Parkway. In support of my motion I include the findings proposed by the Staff at the bottom of page 3 and continuing on page 4 of the Staff Report. Mr. Albright: Second. Mr. Shuff: Okay. Public input? [No public input.] Mr. Ballow: I didn't hear [the motion.] Ms. McWilliams: For Alan's benefit, would you like to read back the motion? Mr. Ballow: No, I'm okay. Ms. McWilliams: Why don't we go ahead and read it back just so you have it. Ms. Suess: I have quite a bit of it. Ms. McWilliams: Go ahead. Ms. Suess: I move to deny the application for alterations at 2902 Rigden Parkway. In support of my motion, I include the findings at the bottom of page 3 and continuing on page 4 of the Staff Report. Mr. Albright seconded the motion. Mr. Shuff: All right. All those in favor say"Aye." All those opposed, same sign. Okay. Motion carries. [Approved 6-0] Mr. Shuff: Next item. - 6 - ATTACHMENT 5 Photographs of barn presented by Appellant at the November 18, 2009 Landmark Preservation Commission Hearing Paint problems , foundation issues south side - 1 4of barn . South side of barn Paint issues on barn _ Single glass windows on �; the barn i f�R' �__—�— • r „�� • vim 'd r �/or i I1 low now .r West side construction issues from previous replacement of siding and flicker issues , creating water damage inside west wall of barn . • • AWW—Poll- lp UK ~tom : goot i I r r t r • s Ar bi Jam' �.� � f `• _ � • I r �� Garage , • structural damage , flickerdamage and unmatched Ilk � r + 1 :fit.. ,,. •�+t ' , •.'r" � 7u N y'S ♦I '! - 1 - 1 Chicken Coop , serious paint , and wood rot issues . -� 1 •-..•.ram-- , r - .j, It dN y - - _ • /w.+ . .- 0 .l. Pl lei \T .. , Resists Damage From Cold , Windy Climates Holds up against the effects of temperature swings in cold-weather climates. Can be installed to withstand hurricane-force winds. a Resists Damage From Wet , Humid Climates Resists rotting and cracking even in extremely damp climates. ll Resists Flame Spread Acheives highest possible flame spread rating . Resists Damage From Impact Strength and thickness provide impact resistance caused by Wet hail and wind. _ `. Resists Insect Damage �y Resists damage from termites and other wood-eating insects. This is how the Hardie Colonial Roughsawn siding will look when installed . Please note how close we have matched this siding to the existing siding you see in the attached pictures . INN lot ATTACHMENT Rigden Farm Petition submitted by Appellant, Mike Schwab, on February 9, 2010 RECEIVED 1L8 09 2010 . rt �n�nn nrnhG TRANSMITTAL TO: CITY COUNCIL 01-THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS FROM: MIKE SCHWAB,MANAGER RIGDEN FARM MASTER ASSOCIATION SUBJECT: LPC APPEAL DATE: 2/9/2010 CC: CITY CLERK Rigden Farm Petition The Board of Directors of the Rigden Farm Master Association has collected 268 signatures from residents that support the position of the Board. Rather than fill the city council meeting with residents and spend needless hours of public comment on a matter that is so cut and dry, the Board decided to collect signatures to express that the residents of Rigden Farm HOA feel strongly that the LPC has over reached and usurped the private property rights of the owners of Rigden Farm HOA. Please accept the following signatures on behalf of the residents of Rigden Farm. Rigden Farm Barn Petition The undersigned, being residents of Rigden Fann, hereby request that the Fort Collins City Council overturn the decision of the Landmark Preservation Committee who's decision infringes on the private property rights of the Association and prevents the Board of Directors and the residents of Rigden Farm from maintaining the Barn and outbuildings in the Association in an economical manner, and in a manner that protects and preserves the structures for future homeowners to enjoy. No Address Signature CAN�� WAti ✓2 � i� �nr,ul�u L-V1 3 4 -2-6 2 i ✓5 2E2�W, J 6 C11J ,j� LII Ie J s 10 3115 12 -,39 A I)f\�E Tl 13 N 14 " (n�, ' ' n 15 '2-7 JCl rCT�T1P \Si✓ W , 16 a �'ac..a✓1 17 18 �3' y /Tile/fc � ) 19 •Li- Q i l�' i 20 2 2� 0,tl (tSi 21 2. AA]I CCU— sr� 22 23 24 C� v� ts- UU^an i - 7.�> v 25 Z S0 Ayxr\e ASP. i 26 l�J Rigden Farm Barn Petition The undersigned, being residents of Rigden Farm, hereby request that the Fort Collins City Council overturn the decision of the Landmark Preservation Committee who's decision infringes on the private property rights of the Association and prevents the Board of Directors and the residents of Rigden Fann from maintaining the Barn and outbuildings in the Association in an economical manner, and in a manner that protects and prese es the structures for future homeowners to enjoy. 27 28 v J a 6-r.& 29 ✓ 3Z1 S C2I ASi1�. 30 '" o ✓a7di /�e� /�/��G��� ICY 31 4/a6p33 s r C4QQ b . 32 ' l V a(9 33 34 L� V2 0-;� Iz 35 I lanol nodu V P-M 36 ✓ 27/ vv, ILJeA/ �,Ew 37 . 2 va 38 N' ��• 5 �� �� �1� �2 / 40 CAQi;IP I ,�JCG�S Z9J7-3 1h e.li al -2 93s 42 43 44 i�—CAP ✓ —C�y y� T �.o 45 �Cs� oy.; T n 1 1�q 46 7 45 at,F GJ 47 48 7 L 3-114 WI t I ' 49 J/ 44 - 50 avltZX/ " G Z72 11 /� 51 7 L-7Z1 ft41 l/ e ,'5e U/ 52 53 54 Rigden Farm Barn Petition The undersigned, being residents of Rigden Farm, hereby request that the Fort Collins City Council overturn the decision of the Landmark Preservation Committee who's decision infringes on the private property rights of the Association and prevents the Board of Directors and the residents of Rigden Farm from maintaining the Barn and outbuildings in the Association in an economical manner, and in a manner that protects and preserves the structures for future homeowners to enjoy. 55 J/ _ n oSTA {^ �, llLXAi 4&4A 26ol + J�I1�•� Noel /'kw 56 �G✓� � �✓ � �-SIS 4-nklekSe VT 57 ''{1T ry S1g /1�1(J'lCt L4� 58 59 60 1 3,b i S �- 61 6 1 2.�5 z� UQ RM 65 ► ILU I lil;S e; �>o Roanam 66 ()' / VI 67 '502A f�6,111Yu�/ v 68 3D�7 uc�•^cy . \ 69 27Z1 / 4 i , J p-. Pad b 70 71 �� S Z-1 LA5 I C,- 72 i .� 0 74-5 73 74 75 i �--- ;2n p7 32 h1jP i/5Ar ci I /� n���s (61 (75.� � 76 77 ° A 7s G � �z1 YYra�h C� 79 80 , ,� b C'JOS�' 81 a �a IfJ � V0 S I 82 'f oh s or � F� to �' ��2,Abq Rigden Farm Barn Petition The undersigned, being residents of Rigden Farm, hereby request that the Fort Collins City Council overturn the decision of the Landmark Preservation Committee who's decision infringes on the private property rights of the Association and prevents the Board of Directors and the residents of Rigden Farm from maintaining the Barn and outbuildings in the Association in an economical manner, and in a manner that protects and preserves the structures for future homeowners to enjoy. 83 l��^J� 2 Z 6 84 Ph4e)il . 85 Aipa 12kwa 86 2-7L14 ti)M , lJatL PKcu� 87 _ A zs-)L. )-t/ )lAa. 1 - 8s 89 90 272-0 91 i 92 93 �� Gr lM ooc-d K&u 94 95 96 9 ' ' 98 99 n 100 - 2. 7,33 101 'car` .2133 LA1tl(iCtrn Newt ,OJrK,vJ 10 2 / Al fw 103-- 104 a7703 Arrv,lf-1,ef ty�✓ 105 1 () �n 106 �C 2727 �yc.IGz�erLz try 10 r>? S Air r/iiy 108 'A� W D( 109 Rigden Farm Barn Petition The undersigned, being residents of Rigden Farm, hereby request that the Fort Collins City Council overturn the decision of the Landmark Preservation Committee who's decision infringes on the private property rights of the Association and prevents the Board of Directors and the residents of Rigden Farm from maintaining the Barn and outbuildings in the Association in an economical manner, and in a manner that protects and pressservesj the structures for future homeowners to enjoy. 111A 1-0 J ✓�/� ��_ 2�'Ic' Aojl�e C.,Lsr - 112 J 113 -,01 a 114Q-4^ Q z 115 116 117 ( AIN17� ok1lA� �/ i 118 3 3 A (2 a&1t. 7 119 120 121 3�0 Ir Ct fly 122 (� , 123 Z ?t cV 124 125 3z 126 127 128 �- 129 i 130 131 — z /'3 2 g07f1 :5E �/,�'�.\ 132 313Z I .yI�N�sC-- SiV� 133 3/c3Z- U-lIns p2. 134 3( Z o/1 C.�u/5e O 135 136 . t 137 1 t1' W C 138 � � Rigden Farm Barn Petition The undersigned, being residents of Rigden Farm, hereby request that the Fort Collins City Council overturn the decision of the Landmark Preservation Committee who's decision infringes on the private property rights of the Association and prevents the Board of Directors and the residents of Rigden Farm from maintaining the Barn and outbuildings in the Association in an economical manner, and in a manner t rotects and preserves the structures for future homeowners to enjoy. ^ 139 -y2 111�I/�� 140 141 3�iZ �y �114F5 c' D IZ 144 ✓ Z-? 73 —7 C 0 C- 145 --v 4 ' �1 3 Z / i 1 147 148 Ah 149 2/0 1 O�i4'7 fir"v�c 150 / 7 151 \ / �� �� (/�✓ 152� �I a ->/ 153 154 155 156 rc/in (1(n 7 157 NA,41 gu r LP ' h ��� G �2h W� 158 2 767 C L'�o -�- 159 ,;Z 7 160 F 5 k,L' 1 g 3 161 162 U �© 163 164 165 166 Rigden Farm Barn Petition The undersigned, being residents of Rigden Farm, hereby request that the Fort Collins City Council overturn the decision of the Landmark Preservation Committee who's decision infringes on the private property rights of the Association and prevents the Board of Directors and the residents of Rigden Fann from maintaining the Barn and outbuildings in the Association in an economical manner, and in a manner that pr tect jand-preeserves/the structures for future homeowners to enjoy. r 168 i��ZZ C' 169 Z oat '6 i eC-!r\h 170 171 7 t% ( an 172 173 / ) 174 175 J -7ba i C(&= 67, ! 1 �,, 176 5 j✓vJ Z�i ! '(�!n 170441 177 y 178 ;7(p 179 180 l k- 7Cj''Z rr laln�,t l,L2c_.t.., 181 f �" � �u C r`'IJ Y W A 182 183 184 2..tP 186 �- Tie c 187 2 3� 188 189 AluJd 190 � 191 {. &L-o-ce,. Av- lue- 192 3��J Gtw1z_ rW193 194 195 t✓ ✓d/ :����( 'mot in/� �/% i " U 1 Rigden Farm Barn Petition The undersigned, being residents of Rigden'Fann, hereby request that the Fort Collins City Council overturn the decision of the Landmark Preservation Committee who's decision infringes on the private property rights of the Association and prevents the Board of Directors and the residents of Rigden Fann from maintaining the Barn and outbuildings in the Association in an economical manner, and in a manner that protects and preserves the structures for future homeowners to enjoy. 196 ti\ `�/r\ L /�1�.1� WAS P 197 , t //n�, 198 ' J' K e sSea%� 2� 21 OIC4 200 U 1 d� 5 U/N s 201 .✓� 40 202 / EqQ DnmoiyiiS 203 Z C f L W Jza,—M 204 ` 205 C� 206c40 �1' N C Z ' s Vr-, 207 / 3 22s l 208 ���l 209 210 /� !i 211 212 213 214 Z�/y S,* 13,,11 w 215 S�,y� c���f Hm�, � dz 217 'LS33 es por 218 eJ 219 i ? � l'I 220 221 222 223 til L ail. Z FZ (. G Rigden Farm Barn Petition The undersigned, being residents of Rigden Fann, hereby request that the Fort Collins City Council overturn the decision of the Landmark Preservation Committee who's decision infringes on the private property rights of the Association and prevents the Board of Directors and the residents of Rigden Farm from maintaining the Barn and outbuildings in the Association in an economical manner, and in a manner that otects and preserves the structures for future homeowners to enjoy. 224 "/ AP(a D,--) /no,,-a or-, F/C Cc) 665a5- 225 " ot��c P ` s3 Z s -40 l�s `3Dr. 13-C, CG-) SSZ5 226 Pef 114ol'ief . f gESZ f 227 228 ��� 229 G 230 Tf--, gQS-zf-- / 231 /' i /1 C '232 1 9 ,. �'32�a �i �7Ni FL 90525- -233 �� �� 3 2 V q4l 234 // /1 L4 ��,,-ttf 235 - �� ���-S Can b >/ f (gcu-ar Z�3 FC E0 SL5 238�-` f? ' 3 D 6552 239 L/�—' 2 2C/2'7 (_Gtr„�ji �V FC-: 0/-:25 240 241 o 242 -014A A 243 cu 11 173ar6f 36209 244 ,�,_y� zzG 245 ,S 24 �+n VV bIJJ 5 248 17 21 ?!-5-� 249 '2-Z b 250 i f7a 2 C 565z--5" 251 Z. 7 0 //Cit 6� 173. o �Oo s v5L1 . - � s Inns rr��tne Rigden Farm Barn Petition The undersigned, being residents of Rigden Farm, hereby request that the Fort Collins City Council overturn the decision of the Landmark Preservation Committee who's decision infringes on the prival property rights of the Association and prevents the Board of Directors and the residents of Rigden Farm from maintaining the Barn and outbuildings in the Association in an economical manner, and ir manner that protects and preserves the structures for future homeowners to enjoy. No Address P Signature 255 256 LA / 257 „2.11o 258 1 a 0 Des Mop ne S 259 2-f S - 260 261 ---- 262 � S;}�i r a 3�n i f ti H 263 AA QYQ r� w� 264 265 7 267 2-903 ZT14-10 e_ 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 ATTACHMENT 7 Staff PowerPoi nt presentation for February 16, 2010 Hearing Appeal of Landmark Preservation Commission Decision ATTACHMENT 7 Appeal of Denial to Install Hardie Plank Siding Over Historic Wood Siding Henry Jessup / Cal Johnson Barn 2902 Rigden Parkway Summary • Landmark Preservation Commission Conceptual and Final Review - December 9 , 2009 . • Request to install " Hardie Plank" fiber cement siding . • Result : Cover historic wood of Jessup/Johnson Barn . • Landmark Preservation Commission denied request . • Rigden Farm Master Association Appealing Decision . F�tf History • Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Buildings . • Five historic structures , constructed circa 1919 . • Buildings Relocated in 2000 . Rigden Farm Development Project . Capital Project to Widen Timberline Road . • Barn Rehabilitated for Use as Meeting Room/ Community Center in 2001 [tins • Fort Collins Landmark . • Designated by Council , November 2000 . • Farm Designated in New Location . • Architectural Importance . F�t [tins • Historic Gambrel Roof Wood Barn . • Cover Wood Siding with Fiber Cement Product . Barn in Good Condition . Repair , Rather than Replace . • Request Denied , 6 -0 . • Did Not Comply with Requirements of Section 14 -48 ( b ) . f Allegations of Appeal 1 . The property should not be a historic landmark , and so the Commission did not have the authority to consider the item . 2 . The Commission failed to conduct a fair hearing . 3 . The Commission failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter. F� [tins LPC Denial • Request to Cover Historic Wood Siding With Fiber Cement " Hardie Plank" Siding Denied . • Does Not Comply With Criteria in Section 14-48 of City Code . • Request Denied 6-0 . [tins QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL ACTION 1 . Did the Landmark Preservation Commission have the authority to hear the item ? 2 . Did the Landmark Preservation Commission fail to hold a fair hearing ? 3 . Did the Landmark Preservation Commission fail to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter? F� [tins C s �. � ; , e � � � . � .. .� _ _ _ _ ---_� 9