Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19920325Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of March 25, 1992 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - RESO #2, 1992 INVENTORY OF HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES AS RE-EVALUATED 1 CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT - 201 E. HYMAN - PUBLIC HEARING 8 WAGNER PARK ICE RINK - WORKSESSION 11 14 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of March 25, 1992 Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Joe Krabacher, Jake Vickery, Roger Moyer, Martha Madsen, Les Holst and Linda Smisek present. Excused were Don Erdman and Karen Day. MOTION: Joe made the motion to approve the minutes of February 26, 1992; second by Jake. Ail in favor, motion carries. MOTION: Martha made the motion to approve the minutes of March 11, 1992; second by Roger. Ail in favor, motion carries. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - RESO #2, 1992 INVENTORY OF HISTORIC SITES i~ND STRUCTURES AS RE-EVALUATED Bill Poss opened the continued public hearing. Roxanne: I would recommend that a clarification of the rating category be included in the resolution. It is in the landuse regulations already but the public might get confused. Roxanne: Martha, Jake, Linda, Bill were present for both public hearings and will vote on the resolution. Joe and Roger were not. W.R. Adam Waltam, owner of 635 E. Hopkins: I am concerned about Roxanne upgrading the rating system of a great majority of structures from supporting to contributing. My structure from 1982 to 89 was rated a 3 on a one to five scale. Roxanne said that she was placing the structures that had a 3 in the middle because that was the middle and it looks like the middle here is contributing. Significant at the high end, then contributing and supporting. I question this because in the memo it states "only properties rated 4 - 5 required approval by HPC for demolition. The numerical rating process was arduous and somewhat subjective. It is important to note that the 1986 rating process was not an in-depth study of the Inventory. The purpose was to apply rating numbers to all properties already identified in the Inventory. In 1989 the numerical rating system was retired, to be replaced again with three easily understood category titles: Significant, Contributing and Supporting." Adam: I see no reason to change the majority of these from supporting to contributing. My structure being one of them. If they paid the professionals to do this job and had a good overview of this why not utilize the more recent system that they formulated? Why go back to the one, two, three, four, five? Roxanne: The 1980 the inventory was created and developed. At that time the consultants used three symbols for exceptional (square), excellent (triangle) and notable (circle). 8% were exceptional, 12% excellent and 80% notable. In 1986 there was no Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of March 25, 1992 re-evaluation of the inventory. Ail that was done was a numerical system that was applied to this inventory. All of the above received numbers 1 through 5 with three being in the middle. Roxanne: The numerical system was put on specifically to separate out those properties that would require an HPC review for demolition. The symbols went away and they were replaced with numbers. What they did generally was apply #5 to the exceptional and #4 to the excellent and #1 -3 to the notable. The was generally only. Triangles and squares = #5 triangles and circles = #4 circles =#1 - #3 Roxanne: Now what we have done for 1992, because these symbols are easy to put on a map and recognize, we have gone back to the symbols but they mean different things. The square is significant which means anything on the state or national register. The triangle means contributing which is about 75% of the inventory. The circle means supporting which is about 10% of the inventory. Joe: Let me ask you a couple questions that would help clarify this. Is there any difference with respect to the demolition standards if you are in a supporting or contributing category? Roxanne: No. Joe: Is there anything different in the review standards if you are in a supporting or contributing category? Roxanne: No. Joe: Before people wanted the rating lower than a 4 so that they did not have to go through a demolition and now everyone has to go through demolition anyway whether you are supporting or contributing. You also have the same review standards. Adam: The fact remains that you have three different categories and since it makes no difference to the City as far as a review lets be more nearly correct and put my property in supporting. Supporting , original integrity lost due to alterations; however, is retrievable with substantial effort. The next statement by the consultants says justify assessment code; numerous modifications Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of March 25, 1992 made to an original cottage and this refers to my particular house. The resource (house) has not maintained historical or architectural integrity. Roxanne: My recommendation is that Adam's house remain in contributing because when you look at the entire inventory and look at all the properties and all the changes that have taken place to all of them and properties that definitely belong in supporting those are 801 E Hyman, Luchine property, 935 and 939 E. Cooper, you can see that they have changed dramatically and Adam's property really contributes to the character of the community and that is why it is rated that way. I also had a call from Nick Leby who wanted his property to be reduced and when I explained to him what I have just explained to you that there are no differences in demolition standards etc. he didn't push the issue but wanted it brought up to the HPC because he cannot be here to express his concerns. It is up to the HPC to make the decision. Adam: If you ge along with what Roxanne is suggesting I feel you are going to have to change these designations. Bill: In the code it reads contributing as all those historic or architecturally significant resources that do not meet the criteria for Significant; however, these resources have maintained their historic integrity or represent unique architectural design. So it can meet the supporting at the same time and does not meet the significant. Jake: How can something meet the criteria for supporting and also meet the criteria for contributing? Bill: It meets the criteria for contributing but not the higher one significant. Roxanne: Jake wants to know how it can meet both of the lower ones. Jake: In one you preserve architectural integrity and the other one you don't. There is no way that it can have architectural integrity and not have architectural integrity at the same time. Adam: I am talking about my structure. How can it fall within both of them. The consultants have put down that there have been numerous modifications to the cottage. Bill: It meets the supporting requirements but it would have to maintain its historic integrity in order to do that to move up into the contributing or represent an unique architectural design. Adam has represented the columns and gingerbread has been changed and 3 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of March 25, 1992 new siding put on. E. Hopkins. Do the Board members want to re-evaluate 635 Jake: What has the owner done to the building that would obscure its original form or change or remove historical elements that were there. Adam: The only thing that is original on the house are the soufetts and the fascia below the roof line. The studs are original which you don't see outside and the rafters. The skeleton is original. The only thing you see on the outside that is original is the double window on Spring Street side. The only other thing original are the posts on the enclosed porches which were open and they have been split in half and applied to the supporting roof structure. The bay window wasn't there either, there was one small narrow window there. The chimney is a false chimney and there has been an addition on the back. Jake: The overall massing has not changed. Adam: No, the foot print is essentially the same because we had planned on moving the structure since it is in the commercial zone. It is the same except for enclosure of porches and rear addition. Martha: What is the concern about the category you are in? Adam: I feel you should be correct. My house should not be in contributing. It does not maintain architectural integrity. It should be supporting. Bill: The Board would have to find that the definition of the integrity of the house has been lost. Jake: It is a tough call and in terms of the overall mass and scale and the configuration of the house, a lot has changed and the changes would have to overpower the structure. Joe: Supporting says all those historic resources that have lost their original integrity; however, are retrievable as historic structures. These structures have received substantial alternations over the years however with substantial effort could be considered contribution once again. Based on this standard does Adam's property have historic integrity or does it represent a unique architecture design. Obviously wood is going to wear out and the roof would have to be replaced over time and the siding but I feel it has maintained a substantial amount of historic integrity. 701 W. Main is contributing and there is practically nothing left. This property is a finer example of contributing. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of March 25, 1992 Linda: I think where Adam is coming from is from a purist standpoint and that puts an whole different view on the ratings of all these other properties. I do agree with other members that the house is a fine example of contributing and it does retain a great deal of its .integrity even though the siding has been replaced. I can appreciate the purist viewpoint but it doesn't coincide and everything else would have to be readjusted if that was the case and a lot of property would have to be brought down to a lower rating. Jake: If it was original it would be in the significant category. Bill: Is there any support for changing the category of Adam's property? (no response by Board). Adam, there is no support for changing the category. Adam: The only reason the house is there and looks the way it does is due to my efforts. All those greedy people that decided to tear down these structures there the ones that benefited and what I think you people have done is rewarded greed. Do you understand what I am saying. Bill: I think we do. Adam: Thank you for your time. Joe: What is the D? inventory. I believe it is dropping property off the Roxanne: Yes, it is recommended drops. Does the Board have any concerns about resolution 2, 19927 (No comments from Board). I would recommend that we put in the resolution the categories and definitions. The code discusses and states specifically that it shall be the responsibility of the HPC based upon the recommendation of the Planning Director to evaluate the inventory. There has been a lot of thought into each one of these properties within the Aspen context which is certainly different from the purist standpoint. It is on the Aspen curve. Bill: Should we indicate the differences between 1992 and how you evaluated the structures. Roxanne: That is not necessary because the consultants report is merely a report from them in their opinion. It doesn't say that we have to accept their recommendation. I have taken their opinion and re-evaluated their opinion. Many of them have been re- categorized. An outside opinion is merely an opinion. Joe: Roxanne took the recommendations and re-evaluated the 5 Historic Preservation committee Minutes of March 25, 1992 structures. Roger: I can't understand why someone would be angry over a classification, you are either on or off the inventory. It makes no difference. Bill: The board thoroughly reviewed this property and came to the conclusion that it should not be changed as there was not enough support. Joe: I read the minutes and he is upset about the taxes on his property. Roxanne: He is. Martha: That is the issue. Roxanne: I can add another whereas stating that the Planning Office accepted the consultants report and make amendments accordingly. Bill: Just so there is reference and written record in the resolution. I can see in five or six years people coming in asking how it was changed. Norma Dahl, Snow Queen Lodge: Does the property tax have anything to do with the category of a victorian place? Joe: My experience with tax protest is if the applicant comes in and states that the property is historic and has designation and the house is in poor shape then you have an argument to get them to reduce your assessed evaluation. They do not look at categories. The assessors look at the condition of the structure itself. People who have challenged were mostly successful in getting them reduced. Roxanne: The assessor's office has a list of historic structures. Roger: Possibly a resolution could be written up that would deal with the input that we have gotten from individuals concerning taxes on historic structures and that information be forwarded to the State Legislation and that they request that it be looked into. Roxanne: I will draft that out and bring it to your next meeting. Bill Poss closed the public hearing. Bill Poss read HPC Reso. 2, 1992 as attached in records. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of March 25, 1992 Bill: There were numerous individuals present at the public hearing and the Board heard their input in the re-evaluation process. MOTION: Roger made the motion to approve the Historic Preservation Committee Resolution 2, 1992; second by Jake. All in favor, motion carries. Roger: 303, 305, 307 S. Cleveland are not historic as they came about in the 40's, early ski era. We are starting to move into that era and we haven't thoroughly discussed this era. Roxanne: We have other landmarks from the ski era inventoried and landmarked. It is not unusual that we have those. Les: I feel as long as the building maintains historic scale it still has historic value and should be retained on the inventory. Roxanne: Were you responding to the recommended drops? Les: Yes, all five of them. Scale is an important part of the historic texture of the mining community. Roxanne: It is important to mention that 120 N. Fifth Elizabeth Fergus house we also found to be a complete makeover and has totally changed. Jake: Of the people that wrote letters did we change anything? Roxanne: Elizabeth Fergus wrote a letter and there were two others that wrote, one Mrs. Chisholm whose property is in the Main Street Historic District and is considered contributing in the historic district and we discussed that and the other property was Margaret Days which Tam Scott argued for at 135 W. Hopkins which is rated contributing. His argument was loss of historic value and we found that it was altered over the years like most of them have but does not have complete loss of historic value. Elsa Fisher also sent a letter. Martha: I have a problem, what is the historic value of the Day property? Roxanne: When you look at it based upon the definition of architecturally significant resource based upon the current architectural integrity of the historic significance, community and neighborhood influence, certainly Staff has found that it should not go off the inventory and that it does meet the criteria to be on the inventory. Very significantly the bay window. The entire parcel is on the inventory not just individual buildings. 7 Historic Preservation Cemmittee Minutes of March 25, 1992 Martha: I had a call from Steen Gantzel about his little log cabin and he does not want on the inventory. Roxanne: The Christiania Lodge is in the Main Street Historic District and any review would come through you anyway. I will write him a letter and my information is different than what he indicated in the letter and he can come in. Roxanne: Do we want to add about the consultants report and Staff's amendments to that report. Roger: No, all that adds is confusion. Bill: The inventory will be passed by Council. Roxanne: As I mentioned at the public hearings were missed etc. so they didn't receive a notice sure they get re-evaluated. some properties so we will make CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT - Z01 E. HYMAN - PUBLIC HEARING Bill POSS, chairman opened the public hearing. Joe was excused. Roxanne: The applicant is requesting approval to add a small addition which includes one bedroom and a bath to the rear of this parcel. The Planning office finds that it meets the development review standards and the partial demolition standards and we are recommending approval. The applicant is also recommending that you grant final at this time as well. Very rarely do you do that. The only time that this is appropriate is if conceptual is approved with no conditions. The Board needs to closely look at the trim on the windows for the addition as it is very much the same as the original house. Make sure the old should read as old and new compatible. Graeme Means, architect: The massing model indicates what we would like to demolish, which is a later addition and add it back on and extend the wall four feet. We would then have a new gable and connecting element. We feel the project is very modest and contextual in nature and we have tried to keep the new forms smaller than the existing. We tried to make a break between the existing and the new and kept the basic architectural shapes consistent with the original. We are aware that the front of the house is a very significant historical element and we kept the addition to the rear so that the bay window and the porch which has the most intricate detailing can remain as is. The project is quite modest and contextual. We have picked up on some of the Historic Preservation committee Minutes of March 25, 1992 original detailing. Norma Dahl: Is this going to be a two story with a garage in back? Graeme: The existing garage will stay and it is a one story addition, bedroom with bath. Roxanne: How many parking spaces are on the parcel right now? Graeme: Two in the garage and one outside the garage and they meet the code. President of 210 Cooper Building Association: We are right behind the applicants building and my questions have been answered. Mariam Hartman, owner: I wrote to all the people regarding the certificate of mailing. John Hartman, owner: We had six or eight people come by and they were glad that the addition wasn't two story. CLARIFICATIONS None COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Les: It is a good project and I am glad they are keeping the massing down. Just a simplification of the trim itself should be enough to delineate the old from the new. Roger: It meets all the guidelines. In regards to the fenestration of the trim wouldn't a new window be different than what is existing on the old house. Graeme: Yes it would and I would be glad to go over the trim detail and believe it is simplified and yet we don't want to do a plain unadorned addition. We have not priced this out yet and there might be a couple of changes that we might want to make if the budget needs to be cut. We could do that through a monitor. There are two items: One is the true divided light windows and we might not be about to do those. On the east elevation there are two. I would like to enter this drawing into the record which Staff has seen. On the south elevation there are three double hung windows which are show two over two's. Going to a single pane over a single pane but they would still be double hung. The windows in the bay are not divided two over two so there is precedence with the single. This would only he an alternate if funding cannot be provided. The other alternate would be if we cannot afford to put a shingled roof on that we put black asphalt shingles on the roof. 9 H~stor~c Preservation Committee ~nutes of ~&rch 25~ ~992 The roof presently is partly roof shingles and partly black asphalt shingles. Roxanne: Would you then be only re-roofing the new addition or re- roofing the entire house in asphalt. Graeme: We don't know yet but the roof is leaking. Roxanne: We can deal with that with the monitor and Staff. Bill: If the windows and the roof are the only two issues they can be handled through the monitoring system. MOTION~ Bill entertained the motion that conceptual development application for 201 E. Hyman be approved finding that the development review and partial demolition standards have been met. Roger: I so move; second by Les. Ail in favor, motion carries. Bill: Will the committee be willing to accept the plans that Graeme has here with him today as conceptual and final. We have no information of detailing or materials. We could accept final development with the condition that Graeme submit drawings to be reviewed by Staff. Roxanne: Graeme has submitted those drawings to me for the records. MOTIONs Roger made the motion that HPC grant final development approval to 201 E. Hyman based on the following conditions that Staff accept the revised drawings as submitted Monday. That Staff and monitor review possible change in windows on the west and south elevation from true divided light two to two to one to one. Also that the Staff and monitor work with the applicant on roof materials as budget allows; second by Les. All in favor, motion carries. Jake: What are you doing with the trim that is different from the original? Graeme: We are not exactly duplicating the existing it is more elaborate than that. We are putting on one by four corner boards and picked up the geometric shape. Jake: One of the things that is fun about this house is that it is simple, small scale, with heavily blown out details. What is your attitude about that relative to the addition. Graeme: We didn't want to compete with the original house and yet 10 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of March 25, 1992 the owners wanted something very contextual and kept very much the feeling of the house. Our philosophy was to defer in scale and simplify in detail. Bill Poss closed the public hearing. Martha Madsen is monitor. WAGNER PARK ICE RINK - WORKSESSION Roxanne: Mr. Koch is interested in donating 2 million dollars as a gift to the City to construct a new ice rink in Wagner Park which is in the historic district. The HPC has full authority over the design review and or basic construction that occurs in the park. Craig Hansen, Design Workshop: We have been working with Savannah on the other ice rink across from Ruby Park and David Koch approached us with the idea of donating an ice rink to the City and wanted our office to look into the feasibility of putting it in Wagner Park. The current location is the northern side of the park. We are looking at a concrete refrigerated slab that is eight to twelve inches below the finished grade at that end of the park that is excavated every fall and we put up dasher boards and temporary lights/bleachers and flood that area and use it for a skating surface primarily for recreational skating and possibly potentially for hockey exhibits or figure skating demonstrating. Trying to keep the use informal. There would also be a building that would have skate rentals etc. and it would be on the mall. Everything would be kept at the north end of the park. There is a lot of car activity around Durant and the north area seemed more of a pedestrian area. We are proposing to widening the existing pedestrian park at the north end of the park and providing landscaping/trees. Roxanne: There would be a relocation of the tot-lot and new bathrooms would be incorporated in the new structure. The permanent building could be used for concessions in the summer. Martha: How large is the structure? Craig: Roughly 45 by 57. The idea would be a transparent section keying off of Rubey Park transit center and blend together. We are just trying to get a handle on what kind of size a building and imagery for the building and location. Whatever we could get underground we would do so. Roxanne: The city is evaluating the problems that a temporary situation like this creates as far as labor, sod, etc. We have not found another one of these in the country yet. We feel something 11 Historic Preservation Committee Ninutes of March 25t ~992 exists that is a temporary/take up take down every year. Craig: The proposed area would be a full size hockey rink, 100 feet by 200 feet. Bill: I have several concerns: In the summertime when the softball field is back up I would like to see the spectator area retained behind the ball field. I would be concerned how the building imposes upon that. That building in relationship to the Rubey Park Transit Center is twice as large. The building that presently houses the Grill and WaterFall Hope should be maintained. We are imposing upon the mall. The malls are a big city investment and I would like to preserve the malls for future historic integrity. I would have a concern about the size of the building coming out into the mall. My other concern is the technology of the refrigeration units; numerous ones that I have seen require large cooling towers and have quite a bit of venting and cause noise. Possibly they could be self contained in the basement. I don't know if the tot-lot is a great focal point for the mall but do feel it is a great improvement to move the present structure. The design of the tot-lot on Cooper should be taken into account. Les: I have deep seeded prejudice against this project. My problem is open space as I feel it is sacred to the pattern language of this town. I have listened to all the presentations. I feel this is damaging to the community and the park. Roger: I somewhat agree with Les. Our purview is historic and our concerns are if a building is built that it fit in mass and scale with the existing community, pattern language. I know the CCLC wants to enlarge the alley and that is pattern language as well. An important part of the rugby program is that they have a platform on which to sit and broadcast the game. This design does not include that and you need to talk with them to see what their needs are. There is the historical consideration of the building and cultural consideration of how the land was used. As far as mass and scale, the ice rink is OK but the problem is the building and to go beyond that the cultural use of the land is important. We created the malls to have an open space and to put a structure in that space is a big minus as far as historic evaluations. The present bathrooms were put in there without any thought what-so- ever. Martha: The concept of the concrete slab, is it safe for Rugby players to fall a dive on? The concept of an ice rink is historic as it is naturally historic. Craig: In terms of protection for the players eight to twelve inches is appropriate. We are going to do some test areas on the 12 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of March 25, 1992 sod this spring. Roxanne: You are hearing that there is room for improvement and possibly demolition of the bathrooms might be a better solution. Roger: Another concern is energy efficiency of the building including the lights used. Linda: I imagine this as a quaint little place to skate vs a hockey rink that is olympic size. The two don't work together. You will not get the feeling of enjoying skating if you have sides up for hockey etc. Craig: The idea is toward recreational skating but we do not want to limit it. If this is approved the other rink will turn back into green space with a small paving plaza for performances. Roxanne: I am sensing that the building is too big. The size of the rink needs to considered closely. There are severe impacts on the park. Some members feel the size of the rink is appropriate. Bill: The idea of skating in the park is great but it should be less urban. Craig: We are trying to compare manmade ice rinks. *George Robinson presented for the record the concerns that the Parks Department has. *Video on Fort Collins Historic Preservation Program. MOTION= Bill made the motion to adjourn; second by Roger. favor, motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Ail in Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk