The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutEAST VINE STREETS FACILITY PUD AMENDED FINAL - 30 91D - CORRESPONDENCE - HISTORIC PRESERVATIONi Comm---fity Planning and Environment' Services .Advanc.. Tanning Department City of Fort Collins March 11, 1999 Jack Gianola, Project Manager Facilities City of Fort Collins RE: SUGAR13EET WAREHOUSE ADAPTIVE REUSE Dear Jack: As you know, last evening the Landmark Preservation Commission heard your complimentary final review for the Streets Department's plans to rehabilitate the old Sugarbeet Storage Warehouse on Vine and Lemay. The Commission appreciated your bringing the plans to them even though the building was not designated. The Commission had positive comments about the way your plans have evolved into a sensitive way to adaptively reuse the historic warehouse. Thank you for taking the time to include the Landmark Preservation in your project review. Sincerely, Carol Tunner Historic Preservation Planner wp51%1Vc\1pc_m0d1.req '81 North College A- ,enue • P.O. Box 380 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6076 F.-\X (970) 224-6111 • TDD (970) 224-6002 • E-mail: aplanningCwci.fort-collins.co.us LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting Minutes March 10, 1999 Council Liaison: Scott Mason (226 — 4824) Staff Liaison: Joe Frank (221-6376) Commission Chairperson: Per Hogestad (303-292-1875) SUMMARY OF MEETING: The LPC approved 144 North College Avenue for State Tax Credit Part 2, and the porch restoration of the Isaac W. Bennett House at 816 West Mountain Ave. for a 1999 Landmark Rehabilitation grant. The LPC reviewed plans for renovation of the north brick building at the old Sugar Beet factory at 725 East Vine. The LPC approved the writing of support letters for State Historical Fund grants. Projects included the restoration of the Andrews House, 324 E. Oak, and the Streetcar Barn, 330 N. Howes. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Mr. Hogestad called the meeting order at 7:35 p.m., at 281 North College Avenue. Commission members Janet Ore, James Tanner, Angela Milewski, and Angie Aguilera were present. Bud Frick and Rande Pouppirt were absent. Carol Tunner represented staff. GUESTS: Carolyn Early, owner, 144 North College Avenue; Jack Gianola, City Project Manager and John Renhowe, Vaught -Frye Architects for 725 East Vine; Jim White, Architect, Carol Stansfield, Facilities Management, Colorado State University for the Andrews House. AGENDA REVIEW: None. STAFF REPORTS: Ms. Tunner handed out forms for the Colorado Preservation Inc. state honor awards. This is a program where in the last year, they nominate a project for the State Honor Awards. Ms. Tunner provided a handout, from_ Timothy Wilder, City Planner, on the final results of the Landmark Rehabilitation Grant Program for 1999. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The November 18, 1999 LPC meeting minutes were accepted as submitted. COMMISSION MEMBERS' REPORTS: Ms. Milewski reported on the March Downtown Development .Authority meeting. A new director, Jay Hardy has been chosen. There was a long discussion about the Northern. Hotel because at the time they were trying to put together funding for the final closing. After settling these matters, Friday was the closing date. The DDA did vote for a portion of their tax increment funding for the project, up to $330,000 and they also have a contingency to go back to discuss the funding later. The City will also support the project with funds. Landmark Preservation Coi, sion \ March 10, 1999 Meeting Minutes Page 2 CONSENT DESIGN REVIEW AGENDA: 144 North College Avenue, Barkley Block — State Tax Credit Part 2 (Carolyn gal!yl 816 West Mountain Avenue, Isaac W. Bennett House — Conceptual/Final Review of Porch Restoration for Local Landmark Design Review and 1999 Rehabilitation Grant (Lee Rosen) Ms. Ore moved to approve the consent design review agenda. Ms. Milewski seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. (5-0) CURRENT DESIGN REVIEW: 725 E. Vine Drive, Sugar Beet Factory — Complimentary Final Review of Renovation of an Existinq Brick Building Currently Used for Salt/Sand Storage (Jack Gianola, Facilities Project Manager) Ms. Tunner said that the applicants came to the LPC back in December 1997 for conceptual review. At that time the item that the Commission suggested they change was their plans was for the doors on the north elevation. She said that they have done that. Mr. Renhowe presented the final renovation plans. He said that this is a continuation of the street facilities project which was completed eight years ago. The north brick building is going to be remodeled in generally the same pattern. They intend to rework and replace brick. The concern that was mentioned over a year ago was on the north elevation, where there are seven existing windows. At the time they planned to replace a few' of those windows with doors. They reworked the floor plan to the satisfaction of the client and put those doors between the window openings in order to retain all the windows on the north elevation. The modifications include extending some windows down, to be used as doors on the north and south elevations. He noted that there are no windows on the south elevation now, but some will be added similar to the north side. The east elevation will be very similar to the other facility. On the west elevation they will repair some wall slots and add two more overhead doors. Ms.,Ore asked if there would be new windows on the south elevation. Mr. Renhowe said that there are no windows on the south elevation. Mr. Hogestad asked if the applicant favored further redividing the windows to be enlarged on the north elevation, so that one can read the original smaller windows. Mr. Renhowe said that a window frame horizontal mullion exists, which tells them that the upper window was there before. He said that the windows would be made from prefinished wood, painted white. Ms. Tunner asked if all of the sashes would be replaced. Mr. Renhowe said that it would take place in a similar fashion as the other building and that they were not salvageable. Ms. Ore asked about the addition on the front of the building. She said it was low and out of scale with the traditional high industrial building. Mr. Renhowe said that it was r� Landmark Preservation Cor ;ion March 10, 1999 Meeting Minures Page 3 a taller building than the historic streets building. He said that they had struggled with that because the client wanted two story spaces within the building. They tried to come up with a solution that was as simple as possible and did not detract from the historic structure. He explained the uses of the different areas. The offices would be in the front with space for the crew in the back. He said that they used a modern approach to tie the new addition to the other building's addition. Mr. Tanner asked if the glass block was only used in the doors that were created by lowering the window. Mr. Renhowe said that there was no glass block, only glazed block used as an accent. Mr. Hogestad commented in terms of the major building materials, the split face block of a different color doesn't detract from anything, it works pretty well. Mr. Renhowe explained that they were using materials that were used in the Streets Facility new fagade, but the design is a little simpler. Ms. Ore said that the step parapet was a design that was used on buildings around 1910, and is even better than a segmental archway. Mr. Hogestad asked if they needed .to vote, because this was not a designated structure. Ms. Tunner said no, this was a final complimentary review. Ms. Ore said that you don't see buildings like that often and she asked if both buildings were from the original Sugar Beet Factory. Mr. Hogestad asked about how wide the bays were for the garage doors. Mr. Renhowe said about twelve feet. Ms. Tunner discussed the history of why the two brick buildings were not designated by the LPC. She said that they had provided excellent interpretation inside on the Sugar Beet Factory's history. Mr. Hogestad asked if there would be any brick replacement. Mr. Renhowe said there would be a lot of brick .replacement on the north side. Ms. Tunner asked about the use of the buildings. Mr. Renhowe said it would be traffic control operation. Mr. Hogestad asked if there was any public comment and there was none. Ms. Early asked if the City owned the buildings. Ms. Tunner said that they, did. DISCUSSION ITEMS: LPC Support Letters for State Historical Fund Grants: Ms. Tunner explained how the LPC needed to approve sending letters of support to the State Historical Fund for projects seeking City support: There —are —a number of grant applications going in. and the LPC needs to know about the projects before approving them. 1. Andrews House, Restoration and Stabilization, 324 East Oak (CSU) Ms. Stansfield explained that CSU's Facilities Management leases the upper space to a history grad student, who is caring for the building. (Ms. Ore asked if she had a conflict -of -interest because she was in that department. It was decided that she did not.) Mr. White said that tt,a property was owned by CSURF. They are currently preparing a grant for restoration of the property. There was some confusion as to who would benefit from use of the building. It was determined that the History Department only owns the furnishings. It came to CSUF in 1982. In 1992 the Colorado State University Foundation deeded it to CSURF. Mr. White said that the building was built in 1893 and.he passed