Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutREMINGTON ANNEX - MOD. OF STANDARDS - MOD120002 - DECISION - CORRESPONDENCE-HEARING (3)Landmark Preservation Commission October 12, 2011 - 7 - Program for professional advice. The applicant is always welcome to return to the Commission with additional renderings or design changes. DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW, PRELIMINARY HEARING —121 WEST OLIVE STREET, BOHLENDER FUNERAL HOME — GARY AND KRISTIN BOHLENDER, OWNERS: Ms. Rippy reviewed the Staff Report. The property was reviewed in September 2011 for its eligibility as a Fort Collins Landmark. The Landmark Preservation Commission Chair and the CDNS Director rendered split decisions regarding both the structure's eligibility for individual landmark designation and if the proposed work would impact that eligibility. As provided in Section 14-72 of the Municipal Code, the application is therefore referred to the Landmark Preservation Commission, which shall make the final determination on whether the structure is eligible for individual landmark designation or not. If the structure is determined to be individually eligible, then the Commission shall further determine if the proposed work would impact that eligibility or not. Staff recommends that the Commission find that the structure is not eligible for individual designation as a Fort Collins Landmark. Mr. Bohlender stated that the focus is the original house. They would like to have the house be more of a part of the funeral home. He stated that if the entire property is considered, there is no historic significance because of previous alterations. Mr. Sladek asked Ms. Rippy to go to the History Colorado website, http://www.historycolorado.org/archaeologists/house-commercial-addition, "Special Use Types: Commercial - - House with Commercial Addition." He offered his opinion about the significance of the property. The commercial addition is so overwhelming that he didn't see it qualifying under this style or form of architecture. In reference in the circa 1960 addition, he stated that it is not a good architectural example from that period. Mr. Albright and Mr. Ernest agreed with his comments, and felt that the property is not eligible. Public Input: None. Mr. Albright moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission find the property at 121 West Olive Street not eligible. Mr. Hoaglund seconded the motion. Motion passed: (8-1). DESIGN ASSISTANCE PROGRAM — CLARIFICATION OF FUNDING POLICY: Ms. McWilliams stated she did not have information for the Commission at this time, and it will be discussed at the next work session. OTHER BUSINESS: Ms. McWilliams stated that in the future packets for the Commission meetings will be printed out by the department and will be ready for pick up by Commission members approximately one week before the scheduled meeting. Commission members will be notified by email when the packets are available. Additional copies will no longer be provided at the meetings; therefore, Commission members are responsible for bringing their packets to the meetings. Meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Landmark Preservation Commission October 12, 2011 - 0 - slight purple appearance; the replacement glass is clear. Several Commission members commented that the two samples appeared very similar. Mr. Albright moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission accept the proposed glass replacement for the transoms. Ms. Hax seconded the motion. Motion passed. (9-0). DEMOLTION/ALTERATION REVIEW, PRELIMINARY HEARING- 604 WEST MAGNOLIA STREET — NATE HOFFMAN: Ms. Rippy reviewed the Staff Report. The property was reviewed in September of 2011, and determined to be individually eligible, and that the proposed demolition/alteration would impact its eligibility. Ms. Rippy stated the home was built between 1905 and 1910, and has had no significance exterior alterations since that time. It can be described as either a Denver Box or Classic Cottage. It features several defining elements of a Classic Cottage including a central front dormer with a unique diamond fish -scale shingle pattern, hipped roof, boxed eaves, original thin wood siding, and central porch with shed roof and classical turned spindle posts. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing roof structure and add a full second story. Nate Hoffman introduced himself and his brother, Ted Hoffman. Nate Hoffman stated the roof is dilapidated and is pushing in on itself. Dormers could be added, but it seemed more in keeping with future plans to build an addition and new roof. Mr. Hoffman wants to have several bedrooms in the proposed second floor. They would change the direction of the roof line, from a hip roof to a side gable. The finished house would be 30Y2 feet. Ted Hoffman said the roof pitch would be changed to a 6 and 12 pitch roof. The gable would be turned the opposite direction because there is more space on the sides of the lot. They are able to meet zoning requirements. Small dormers would be added with some windows in the front and back. Ms. McWilliams asked if they had considered meeting their additional space requirements by extending the existing hip roof back as a gable, and adding on to the rear. This type of addition is often readily approved, and the building can still retain its ability to receive the financial benefits. Mr. Hoffman said if the addition comes off the back, it will only provide half of the space that their plan would provide. Nate Hoffman said there is no alley, and a house is close to them in the back. They are already close to the 50% rule. Mr. Frick suggested that the back side of the house could be expanded by 14' and still meet the 5' side yard setback requirements. Ted Hoffman said that with the current foundation (floor plan), that would only make the existing rooms larger. Nate Hoffman stated he would like to add a new porch because the current porch is not anchored properly on the front. He might also want to widen it. Mr. Albright asked about the height of the adjacent structures. Nate Hoffman replied that the houses on either side are one story; there are two story houses several houses over from his house. Mr. Sladek stated that the proposal violates some of the criteria that the Commission must follow and it could not be approved as is. Discussed ensued regarding the Design Assistance Program. Ms. McWilliams will provide the list of Design Assistance Professionals to Nate Hoffman. Since an agreement preserving the individual eligibility of the historic building had not been arrived at, the project will need to complete the Demolition Alteration review Process before a permit is issued. The Commission recommended that the applicant consider the suggestions made tonight, and take advantage of the Design Assistance �J Landmark Preservation Commission October 12, 2011 - 5 - CONCEPTUAL AND FINAL DESIGN REVIEW, AVERY BLOCK — APPROVAL OF MATERIALS FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE INTERMEDIATE CORNICE AND FOR THE PRISMATIC TRANSOM GLASS —CASIE RADFORD, SLATERPAULL ARCHITECTS; BYRON MCGOUGH, WATTLE AND DAUB CONTRACTORS: Ms. McWilliams introduced Casie Radford, Project Manager, with SlaterPaull Architects. She stated this was a continuation of discussion from last month's meeting. Two items need to be discussed: (1) The substitute material proposed for reconstruction of the building's intermediate cornice; and (2) replacement of prismatic glass in areas where there is none with appropriate replacement material. Discussion ensued regarding the polystyrene cornice. Mr. Frick asked if this material will tend to lock moisture behind the wall. Ms. Radford stated that she didn't think so. Chris Wolfe with Nostalgic Stone was introduced. He stated a barrier of some type would probably be put behind the cornice. Also, the wall is somewhat wavy so the cornice will not fit tightly up against the wall. Mr. Frick suggested that some type of flashing material be used, maybe an Inca drain. Ms. Carson asked if they have used a drain board on other old buildings. Mr. Wolfe stated that they have not. Mr. Sladek said he was not in favor of the polystyrene cornice at the last meeting, but after reading Preservation Brief No. 16, Use of Substitute Materials, and State Historic Fund grant manager Anne McCleave's letter, he is more comfortable with its use. Mr. Ernest asked if approval of the polyurea-coated polystyrene could set precedence, and, if it is approved for this project, is the Commission saying in all instances or just in this instance for particular reasons. Mr. Sladek said it has to be approved on a case -by -case basis. Ms. McWilliams stated that it was possible to use a building as a test case, and if a problem is later identified, that material will not be used in the future. Ms. Carson stated she is more comfortable with the use of a non -historic substitute material after reading Preservation Brief No. 16. She stated that she hoped moisture concerns will be appropriately addressed with the mitigation efforts discussed above. Ms. Hex questioned the polystyrene's durability. Mr. Wolfe said that it is inappropriate to finish it with colors that are too dark. Because it is a Styrofoam product, it will melt at 240 degrees. Mr. Frick stated that two motions are needed: one for the cornice material and one for the transom glass, which will be discussed next. Mr. Sladek moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the installation of the polyurea-coated polystyrene for the intermediate cornices on the Avery Block and the use of this material be considered on a case -by -case basis. A drain mat board or other such device must be used that will prevent accumulation of moisture behind the cornices. Mr. Albright seconded the motion. Motion passed. (9-0). Ms. Radford displayed a piece of the historic transom glass that was located over the Olive Oil Company. She stated that while some of the panes are intact, there are several broken or missing pieces. The proposal is to consolidate panes of the historic glass into a few of the transoms, to create transoms with uniform appearance and historic material. The remaining transoms would contain substitute glass. Ms. Radford also displayed a sample of the proposed glass that will replace the missing or broken glass panels. Both samples had ribs on one side of the glass and were smooth on the other. The replacement glass was slightly thicker, with a slightly different rib. The original glass was also coated with manganese, which after time, has given it a very Landmark Preservation Commission October 12, 2011 .4 - proposed to be set in among a series of single story homes. It changes the block face character on Remington, affects other designated historic buildings, and affects the defining character of the neighborhood. Ms. McWilliams suggested that the Commission suggest alternatives to the applicant's plans that still protect the individual eligibility of 711 Remington as required by code. Mr. Hoaglund stated that this could only be accomplished by retaining the existing structure and building sensitively around it. Ms. Bachelet stated these properties are rentals, and it too costly to put that money into the property and expect that it will be a single family residence. It was pointed out that these properties all already qualify for the 20% State Tax Credits and 20% Federal Tax Credits for rehabilitation work. Ms. Hax pointed out that many of the homes in this neighborhood were built originally to be rental properties, and that several of the homes on the block are owner -occupied. Mr. Frick offered several ideas for ways that the plans could be modified and that would potentially retain the individual eligibility of the historic dwelling, and so comply with the code. He noted that one of the significant characteristic of the block pattern is the distance between each of the homes, and that the Bachelets should keep this pattern through deep articulation. They would need to reduce the massing and reduce the height of their proposed project to be compatible. This could be done while keeping the same number of units by building the first level as an in -ground level, with day lighted windows and wells. Mr. Larson said the building has a subterranean design but the space will be used entirely for parking. That was viewed as necessary to enhance the neighborhood and alleviate parking issues. To financially afford the underground parking, a certain amount of mass is required. Mr. Frick also noted that the Button house is one story, and that the mass around it would need to start as a one story and then rise to a two story level. The scale of the project would need to change to be compatible with the historic buildings around it. Mr. Sladek asked the Commission members how they would feel about the new construction wrapping around the house at 711 Remington. The Commission would consider this approach, as long as the design retains the building's individual eligibility. Mr. Larson asked if the Commission had opinions about deconstructing 711 Remington and reconstructing it on top of the parking garage. Commission members agreed with this approach, and noted that it would not need to be deconstructed, but merely supported while excavation occurred underneath, or moved to the side and then moved back. Mr. Frick noted that any repairs and upgrades could be done when it is moved back. Mr. Larson also asked if 711 Remington would then need to be a free standing building or could it attach to the structures around it. Mr. Frick stated it probably could be attached, but the attachment would have to be in the back. Mr. Sladek, Ms. Carson, Ms. Tvede, and Ms. Hax disagreed, stating that this would change the eligibility. Public Input: Jim Palmer spoke. He said he works in commercial real estate. There is a lack of student housing and a lot of public feedback and discontent with certain projects. He stated he felt this would be a great transition and would address needs. He stated it would be a great improvement to the area and CSU and that it fits into the City Plan. Mr. Larson asked about next steps. Mr. Eckman suggested that, since an agreement preserving the individual eligibility of the historic building had not been arrived at, the Commission communicate to the applicants what it would like to see at the next meeting, such as drawings reflecting the suggestions made. The Commission decided that this Preliminary Hearing would be continued, and asked the applicants to return with drawings reflecting the suggestions and comments they received tonight. Landmark Preservation Commission October 12, 2011 - 3 - permit, including, for example, the feasibility of modifying their plans and alternative public or private use of the structure which would substantially preserve the original character. Mr. Larson explained that the Remington Annex Project would encompass the property addresses of 705, 711 and 715 Remington Street, and would provide 42 units of housing within walking and biking distance of the CSU campus and downtown Fort Collins. The development includes an onsite alley -accessed parking structure off of College Avenue to accommodate the increased parking needs. Mr. Larson stated that they view this as an opportunity to preserve some of the historic features of 711 Remington. One of the standards in the Land Use Code is to make sure, to the maximum extent feasible, that the project does take into consideration historical preservation. That standard says "to the maximum extent feasible" and the Preliminary Hearing is for the purpose of exploring alternatives to the building's demolition. It is the applicant's position that this project can be viewed as a prudent preservation effort. Mr. Larson discussed the 711 Remington Street property. Their goal would be to move forward with a development that is an effective use for this neighborhood. He felt that it is a challenge to determine what alterations could be made to the structure. He discussed two approaches that could be taken. The first would be to repair the building, which he stated might potentially result in damaging the structure. The second would be to take out the windows, and maybe a few other elements like the columns and stone, and add them onto a new structure. The Commission asked if this would be a single family residence. Mr. Larson said no, a new multi -unit housing building. He asked about grafting the first 6 to 8 feet of the fagade onto a new building. Mr. Sladek referred to this as a 1agade-ectomy," and pointed out that this would certainly not retain the building's eligibility. Mr. Larson stated the structure has been deemed substandard and unfit for human occupancy. Ms. Tvede asked if the City's Building Department has found the property unsound. Mr. Larson stated no. Ms. Carson asked if people are renting there currently. Mr. Larson said yes. Ms. Carson asked how it could be deemed unfit by the developers if people are living there. Mr. Larson referenced an October 5, 2011 memo submitted by VFL Architects. A response to this memo, prepared by Mike Gebo, Chief Building Official, was referenced. In Mr. Gebo's response, -he noted that only he, as the City's Building Official, has the authority to declare a building substandard, unfit for human occupancy, unlawful, or dangerous, and that he has not done so for any of these properties. Mr. Sladek stated he had a problem with this being discussed as a preservation project. What the applicant is proposing has nothing to do with historic preservation. It deals with tearing a building down, one that is designated on the National Register, and is also a contribution to this National Register District, and he did not see any merit to tearing the building down. This proposal is not a preservation project. Mr. Sladek is also concerned about the process of attrition within the National Register District, and the erosion of the edges that leads to eventual loss of a district. He expressed concern whether approval of this or a similar project will open the door to the eroding into the National Register District, by one block, and then two blocks, and compromising the District. Mr. Frick noted several concerns with the project. He referenced the block faces on both sides of Remington Street, and noted other adjacent buildings that are already designated Fort Collins Landmarks, as well as many that would be individually eligible for Fort Collins Landmark designation. There are individual one or two story houses on the block, but none that are three and a half stories tall. Additionally, the contextual setback of the project is not in keeping with the block face. It is a massive project, Landmark Preservation Commission October 12. 2011 - 2 - last week. There were several interesting session. Mr. Sladek and will provide an update at a future meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The August 10, 2011 minutes were approved with corrections. Ms. Hax moved for approval of the August 10, 2011 Landmark Preservation Commission minutes. Mr. Ernest seconded the motion. Motion passed: (9-0). The September 14, 2011 minutes were approved as submitted. PUBLIC INPUT: None. DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW, PRELIMINARY HEARING — 711 REMINGTON STREET— JUSTIN LARSON, VFL ARCHITECTS, CHRISTIAN AND ROBIN BACHELET, OWNERS: Justin Larson with VFL Architects introduced Christian and Robin Bachelet, owners of the property. Ms. Bachelet stated they still own everything they have built and feel they are the right developers for this project. Mr. Larson also introduced Jeff Johnson, a real estate attorney in Fort Collins. He stated that the owners hope to improve this block of Remington Street. Ms. McWilliams reviewed the Staff Report. The Bachelets, owners of the property at 711 Remington Street, are proposing to demolish the buildings and structures on three adjacent lots, at 705, 711 and 715 Remington Street, to construct the Remington Street Annex Multi -Family Housing project. Two of the properties proposed for demolition, 705 and 711 Remington, contain buildings that are 50 years old or older and therefore are subject to Chapter 14, Article 4, of the Municipal Code, commonly called the Demolition/Alteration Review Process. The house at 715 Remington is not 50 years old and so is not subject to the Demolition/Alteration Review Process. The first property, at 705 Remington Street was reviewed under the Demolition/ Alteration Review Process in 2008, and was determined to not be eligible for individual Fort Collins Landmark designation. The second property at 711 Remington Street was reviewed in August 2011, at which time CDNS Director, Steve Dush, and the Chair of the Landmark Preservation Commission's designee, Ron Sladek, both independently determined that this house does qualify for recognition as an individual Fort Collins Landmark under Standard 3, Architecture. Additionally, all three properties are located within the boundaries of the National Register designated Laurel School Historic District, established in 1980. At the time the District was established, two of the properties at 705 and 715 Remington were less than 50 years old (the minimum age for listing without special consideration), and were identified as intrusions to the District. The middle property at 711 Remington Street, is designated on the National Register as a contributing element of the National Register District Properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places are also designated on the State Register of Historic Properties. Larimer County Assessor's records show that the dwelling at 711 Remington Street was constructed in 1888. The one-story dwelling has a distinctive facade consisting of a hipped central mass with symmetrical projecting hipped end -wings, flanking an open central front porch. Other notable features include a central bell -cast hipped dormer and its unusual 15-light window, the front porch shed roof with squared posts and noteworthy curved braces, and the striking carved rafter tails under the eaves. The front elevation contains a pair of large windows with very unusual 10 over 1 lights In curved surrounds. Ms. McWilliams reviewed the Demolition/Alteration Review process, and stated that at tonight's meeting, the applicants are meeting with the Commission to explore all means for substantially preserving the structure which would be affected by the required LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting October 12, 2011 Minutes Council Liaison: Mr. Wade Troxell (219-8940) Staff Liaison: Mr. Steve Dush (221-6765) Commission Chairperson: Bud Frick 9 All SUMMARY OF MEFTING: The Commission conducted a Demolition/Alteration Review Preliminary Hearing for 711 Remington Street, part of the Remington Annex Multi -Family Project, which was continued. The Commission conducted a Conceptual and Final Design Review of the Avery Block, and approved cornice material and transom glass replacement. The Commission also held Demolition/ Alteration Review Preliminary Hearings for 604 West Magnolia Street and 121 West Olive Street. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Commission was called to order by Chair Frick with a quorum present at 5:39 p.m. at 281 N. College Ave., Fort Collins, Colorado. Bud Frick, John Albright, Sondra Carson, Doug Ernest, Laura Hex, Terence Hoaglund, Jerome Johnson, Ron Sladek, and Pat Tvede were present. Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner, and Courtney Rippy, Planning Technician, and Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney, represented city staff. AGENDA REVIEW: Ms. McWilliams stated there were no changes to the agenda. GUESTS: Jeanne Ramsay, Historic Preservation Assistant with the Aurora Preservation Program; Justin Larson, VFL Architects, Christian and Robin Bachelet, owners, and Jeff Johnson, attorney, for 711 Remington; Casie Radford, SlaterPaull Architects, Spiro and Jim Palmer, owners, Greg Wolfe, Cathedral Stone, and Byron McGough, Wattle and Daub Contractors, for the Avery Block; Nate Hoffman and Ted Hoffman, for 604 West Magnolia Street; and Gary and Kristin Bohlender, for 121 West Olive Street. STAFF REPORTS: Ms. McWilliams invited the Commission to attend the Urban Design Awards presentation tomorrow night, October 13. The Boards and Commissions recognition event will be held on November 3rd. RSVPs are due by October 18`h. A bricks and masonry training session, sponsored by the Rocky Mountain Masonry Institute will be conducted on Tuesday, October 181h in Plattville. The City has been offered a discounted rate which will allow funding for Commission members who wish to attend. Ms. McWilliams also introduced Jeanne Ramsey, Historic Preservation Assistant with the Aurora Preservation Program. COMMISSION MEMBER'S REPORTS: Ms. Tvede reported on the CLG Historic Preservation Commission Training Workshop, held in Central City on October 7, 2011, and attended by Pat Tvede, Laura Hax, and Doug Ernest. The courses were very valuable, especially for new commission members. Leslie Giles, History Colorado Architectural Survey Coordinator, singled out Fort Collins as having "saved a fabulous amount of resources." She also praised Fort Collins for its active preservation program, and gave kudos to Karen McWilliams. Mr. Sladek stated that he and Ms. McWilliams attended a conference on Cultural Landscapes, presented by the National Park Service and History Colorado, in Denver