Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCARRIAGE HOUSE APARTMENTS - PDP - PDP120035 - LPC PACKET - MINUTES/NOTESthe historical significance of the Carlson ownership is not something that would override the lack of integrity. Mr. Sladek concurred. A roll call vote was taken: Albright and Frick voted Yes. Ernest, Lingle, Sladek, Tvede, and Zink voted No. The motion failed (2-5). OTHER BUSINESS: Mr. Lingle recommended we drop the time designations off the agenda to which everyone agreed. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:20 p.m. reversal of the earlier conclusion and is based on both the historical association with the occupant of the home and with the architecture. The eligibility is specifically for the house at 1305 South Shields. Dr. Anstey's report stated that Dr. Carlson lived at 1305 South Shields Street from 1954 to 1968, until he went to the University of Wyoming. Subsequent to that, the Rogue Architecture and the Morgan Angel reports state that Dr. Carlson lived at 1301, not 1305. If Dr. Carlson's significance in history is tied to a specific property, the weight of evidence seems to indicate he was at 1301, not 1305 from 1954-1968. Mr. Autobee stated both homes have been in the Gilkison and Carlson family for almost ninety years. Much of his documentation is based on a phone call with Susan Ward who is William and Beverly Carlson's daughter. In her memory and what she was told by the family is that they lived in both places. Her parents begin their marriage in 1301 South Shields but later moved to the chicken coop or secondary structure at 1305. Part of the problem in early documentation of the site is that there was confusion about where 1301 and 1305 were at, but also early City directories had errors. Mr. Autobee's conversation with Ms. Ward verified one of the properties is north of Springfield and one is south of Springfield. What they must first determine is that the property has exterior integrity before considering if there was an important person who lived there or the other three elements of eligibility. The three components of eligibility are: age, does it have an adequate amount of architectural integrity, and finally, what is it significant for? If one of the three elements is not there eligibility cannot be supported. There were enough questions raised in the combined reports about the construction history of the house; some of the materials, structural systems that show it was built in different periods. The shed dormer on the front could impact the integrity of the front fagade and the argument about the garage and its dominance because it faces the street. Mr. Sladek said he has struggled since the beginning in trying to find an architectural style for the house. Buildings can combine different styles but has this home been compromised over the years? Mr. Frick stated additions and remodels in their own right can become significant over time. Mr. Albright noted that the matter of style is not the only determinant; the continuum of development of the structure is historic in its own right and to get trapped into the easily identified matter of style is to overlook that all structures change over the years. Mr. Albright made a motion that the Commission designates 1305 as eligible for designation. Mr. Frick seconded. Mr. Ernest asked if the motion was to include any citation of Section or paragraphs but Mr. Albright stated no. Mr. Sladek's stated the second architectural survey done by Morgan Angel on the property was more complete and reliable than the first and concluded that the property is not eligible and he will support a not eligible determination. Mr. Lingle agreed and said the integrity that is there does not express the level of exterior integrity that we should hold Fort Collins' landmarks to. He'd like to see the Commission raise the bar and have a quality inventory of eligible and designated properties. Ms. Zink agreed with Mr. Lingle and added that 7 inconsistencies in that report when he presented to the Planning Commission and City Council last spring but, unfortunately, there was not an appeal process in place at that time. The History Matters report describes the home as being a Tudor revival but the Morgan Angel report disputes that. The Gebau Structural Engineering report describes renovations to the 1305 residence which morphed it from a small worker's cottage into what it is today by way of four separate additions. The Morgan Angel report declares there is no historical integrity to the home, corrects the ownership timeline, and disputes any idea that someone of historical importance lived in the home while they accomplished important deeds. He noted it is not eligible on the National Standards but also not in the Fort Collins Standards either. STAFF RESPONSE: None PUBLIC COMMENTS: Joel Rovnak, Ph.D., Colorado State University, stated that his letter is included in the Commissioners' packets and went on to clarify that the two independent determinations of historic eligibility were prepared and designated by this Commission prior to the submission of Dr. Anstey's report. They were not made at all on the determination on the basis of that report. On reviewing the report both prior to its submission and subsequently, there was no statement that Dr. Carlson lived in the house while he was president of the University of Wyoming. It is clear the disposition of Dr. Carlson's inhabitance of that house limits it to the time of his raising and marriage. That is the limit of the historic aspect regarding his residence there. Any efforts to construe the History Matters report in other ways regarding the history are mistaken. APPLICANT RESPONSE: The History Matters report erroneously states that Dr. Carlson lived with his wife and children at 1305 South Shields Street from 1954 to 1968. He moved out of the home once he married and this information is clarified in the Morgan Angel report. STAFF RESPONSE: None PUBLIC COMMENTS: Closed COMMISSIONERS' DELIBERATION: Mr. Sladek stated that the Commission must make a determination of eligibility in light of the new architectural survey report prepared by Bob Autobee of Morgan Angel. They must determine whether the building and the property exhibit an adequate degree of architectural integrity and an adequate degree of significance to merit its being eligible. The new information was received after December 2011 from reports by Morgan Angel, Rogue Architecture, and Gebau Structural Engineer and this information did not have any influence on the previous determination. The request includes two survey forms; the one by Dr. Anstey of History Matters which was done prior to November 2011 and the subsequent one prepared by Bob Autobee of Morgan Angel. Mr. Autobee's finding is that the property is not eligible for designation. This is a Attachment I /-.K- 1V1i0112-- Statement of Significance is usually a summary of the more in-depth information; it is not meant to be all inclusive. Ms. Tvede moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the proposed South Whitcomb Street local landmark district including 601 West Mountain and 612 West Oak under Section 14-23 of the City Code with the proviso that Contributing or Non - Contributing be posted after each address and exclude Montezuma Fuller information. The motion was seconded by Mr. Frick. Ms. McWilliams pointed out that Section 14-23, cited by Ms. Tvede, references only the Department of Community Development and Neighborhood Services Review. The code section to cite would be Chapter 14, Article 2, "Designation Procedure;" or more specifically, Section 14-26, "Findings and Recommendations of the Commission." Ms. Tvede amended the motion from Section 14-23 to Section 14-26, accepted by Mr. Frick. Motion passed unanimously (7-0). The Commission clarified with Mr. Eckman that a separate motion is not needed on the Commission's resolution to City Council, which was, de facto, contained within this motion. The motion and resolution will be forwarded to City Council. The Commission took at short break. DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR DESIGNATION AS A FORT COLLINS LANDMARK, 1305 SOUTH SHIELDS STREET, FORT COLLINS — CHUCK BAILEY, CATAMOUNT PROPERTIES Mr. Sladek again explained the hearing procedures for new arrivals to the meeting. STAFF REPORT: Ms. Kadrich explained that the appeal process is new to the Code and this specific property was heard by prior commissions related to a determination of eligibility and appealed through the Planning and Zoning process. As a result, the Ordinance was changed to allow the Commission to hear a determination of eligibility and allow for the staff to have a list of independent reviewers to do a more in-depth review of the property for the Board's consideration. Mr. Weinberg stated this property has been reviewed multiple times for its eligibility as a Fort Collins Landmark. The City hired an independent expert in historic preservation per the new revised code, Robert Autobee from Morgan Angel Associates, to evaluate the property according to Section 14-72 of the Municipal Code. APPLICANT COMMENTS: Chuck Bailey of Catamount Properties has been seeking an amenable solution to saving the house but felt the house was not eligible and the solution is demolition. Part of the report was produced by the neighbors and was a component of rendering a decision by the Steve Dush, former CDNS director and the Chairman. There were errors and