Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHistoric Preservation Commission - Minutes - 03/16/2022Historic Preservation Commission Page 1 March 16, 2022 Kurt Knierim, Chair City Council Chambers Jim Rose, Vice Chair City Hall West Margo Carlock 300 Laporte Avenue Meg Dunn Fort Collins, Colorado Walter Dunn And Remote Via Zoom Eric Guenther Anne Nelsen Vacant Seat Vacant Seat Regular Meeting March 16, 2022 Minutes  CALL TO ORDER Chair Knierim called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m.  ROLL CALL PRESENT: Margo Carlock, Meg Dunn, Walter Dunn, Eric Guenther, Kurt Knierim, Jim Rose ABSENT: Anne Nelsen STAFF: Jim Bertolini, Claire Havelda, Aubrie Brennan Chair Knierim read the following legal statement: “We are holding a hybrid meeting today in light of the continuing prevalence of COVID-19 and for the sake of the health of the Commission, City Staff, applicants and the general public. Our determination to hold this meeting as a hybrid was made in compliance with City Council Ordinance 79 2020.”  AGENDA REVIEW Mr. Bertolini stated there were no changes to the posted agenda.  CONSENT AGENDA REVIEW No items were pulled from consent.  STAFF REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. Historic Preservation Commission Historic Preservation Commission Page 2 March 16, 2022  PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None.  CONSENT AGENDA [Timestamp: 5:32 p.m.] 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 16, 2022 The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the February 16, 2022 regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. 2. SINGLE FAMILY DEMOLITION NOTIFICATION – 323 S. WASHINGTON AVE Demolition review and notification provides an opportunity to inform residents of changes in their neighborhood and to identify potentially important historic, architectural, and cultural resources, pursuant to Section 14-6 of Municipal Code. This process provides for consideration of a single-family property over fifty years of age proposed for demolition for a new single-family dwelling. Community members receive notice about that demolition and can bring forward information about the property, and if they believe it is eligible as a City Landmark, can take action to protect the property through designation. City staff initiates the notification process after receiving a request for single-family demolition via either a demolition permit or written request with preliminary construction plans. The property is included in the next available consent calendar for the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). Community residents can contact staff or attend the HPC meeting either to provide information about the property and/or nominate the property as a City Landmark under the provisions of Section 14-31 of Municipal Code. Member M. Dunn moved that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the Consent Agenda of the March 16, 2022 regular meeting as presented. Vice Chair Rose seconded. The motion passed 6-0. [Timestamp: 5:36 p.m.]  DISCUSSION AGENDA 3. STAFF DESIGN REVIEW DECISIONS ON DESIGNATED PROPERTIES Staff is tasked with reviewing projects and, in cases where the project can be approved without submitting to the Historic Preservation Commission, with issuing a Certificate of Appropriateness or a SHPO report under Chapter 14, Article IV of the City’s Municipal Code. This item is a report of all such review decisions since the last regular meeting of the Commission. Mr. Bertolini discussed a rehabilitation project for two buildings near the corner of Linden and Jefferson Streets. He commented on the current uses of the two buildings and discussed the extent of the rehabilitation. He stated staff did not forward the decision to the Commission because the majority of the work is repair work that does meet the Secretary of the Interior standards. Member M. Dunn asked if tax credits are being used for the rehabilitation. Mr. Bertolini replied in the affirmative. Member M. Dunn commented on the history of the buildings. 4. THE OVERLANDER AT BALFOUR (3733 E. HARMONY) – DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DESCRIPTION: Redevelopment of a five-acre site at the southeast corner of Harmony and Cinquefoil Lane for a senior living community with independent living, assisted living, and memory care. Project includes adaptative reuse of four historic farmstead structures and construction of a 246,040 square-foot new building. Historic Preservation Commission Page 3 March 16, 2022 Development site is in the Harmony Corridor; the decision maker for this Type 2 Review will be the Planning and Zoning Commission. APPLICANT: Balfour Senior Living, Louisville, CO Lee Payne, DTJ Designs, Inc. Staff Report Senior Historic Preservation Planner Bertolini presented the staff report. He noted this is a development review and he outlined the role of the Commission to provide a recommendation to the decision maker regarding compliance with Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code. He stated the Commission is not being asked to make that recommendation this evening as this item is to serve as more of a conceptual review. Mr. Bertolini discussed the proposed project which is a mixture of adaptive reuse of four historic buildings and the construction of a large new building. The four historic structures include two farmhouses, a barn, and a granary. He went on to detail the location of the project and discussed the historic documentation of the property. Mr. Bertolini noted the property was found to be eligible as a City landmark under standard 1, events and trends, specifically for agricultural history. Mr. Bertolini discussed the proposed site plan and the proposed treatment for each of the historic buildings. Applicant Presentation Michael Schonbrun of Balfour briefly introduced Balfour as a Colorado company. He discussed other Balfour sites that have included restored historic structures and stated the company is excited to utilize the historic structures on this site as they lend character to the development. He discussed Balfour’s approach to combining historic structures with new development. Lee Payne of DTJ Designs gave the Applicant presentation and showed a three-dimensional model of the proposed development. He discussed the intent for adaptive reuse and historic preservation. He noted the barn is intended to be restored for use by the entire community. He discussed the reasons for bringing the historic building closer together on the site to create a village feel and detailed the architectural elements of the new building that provide an interpretive relationship to the historic structures. Mr. Payne discussed the dimensions of the buildings and relationship of them to one another. Additionally, he noted the entry signage is approximately ten feet from the southern façade of the secondary farmhouse and is scaled to not overshadow the farmhouse. Mr. Payne stated the landscape design will mitigate the loss of the unwell trees currently on the property while still meeting the specific landscape requirements of the Harmony Corridor setback area. Due to the setback requirement and significant landscape buffer, the buildings are not likely to be very visible from Harmony Road. Public Input None. Commission Questions and Discussion Member Guenther asked about the intended use of the farmhouse. Mr. Payne replied they will be adaptively reused as independent living cottages. Chair Knierim asked about the proposed use of the granary. Mr. Payne replied it is likely to be used as a gear garage for storing chairs or pickleball equipment. Member M. Dunn expressed support for the project and its embracing of the history of the property. She stated she believes the moving of the structures is fine as long as the original farm context is maintained. She asked if the new white residential building is board and batten and questioned the use of vertical elements. Mr. Payne replied there is horizontal siding, board and batten, and two or three color schemes to provide a mixture of materials and variations in massing. Member M. Dunn asked if all the white on the new building is either horizontal or vertical wood. Mr. Payne replied in the affirmative. He stated the first level has a collection of decorative shutters and windows, board and batten to the ground, horizontal siding, and stone veneer. Historic Preservation Commission Page 4 March 16, 2022 Member M. Dunn asked if there is any stone on any of the historic buildings. Mr. Payne replied the farmhouse foundations include stone; unfortunately, it is painted. Member M. Dunn asked about the location of brick on the new construction. Mr. Payne replied the only brick on the project will be the existing brick on the primary farmhouse which will be lightly cleaned and repainted. Member M. Dunn commented the Code Section 3.4.7.4 which states the new project needs to reference one or more of predominate materials on historic resources. She stated the predominate material being referenced appears to be the wood. She asked if there is anything on the new building that references the studs out construction of the granary. Mr. Payne replied in the negative stating it is very difficult to treat buildings thermally with that construction. Member Carlock stated the vertical siding on the new building could be seen as mimicking the studs out construction. Member M. Dunn asked for Commissioners’ thoughts on Section 3.4.7.2 regarding stories being one level taller than historic structures. Member Carlock asked if the plan to paint the barn is common for barns in the west. Mr. Payne replied the proposed color scheme picks up on the existing colors and he noted the barn changed from white to red over time in the historic photos. Mr. Bertolini stated the paint scheme has varied over time based on the owners and their tastes and histories. Member M. Dunn liked the use of the whimsical sheep stating they are educational and do not affect the historic integrity of the building. Mr. Payne commented on the likelihood the windmill will end up being an interpretive rather than literal component which will help draw a distinction between the old and new. Chair Knierim suggested opening Commission discussion by starting with Section 3.4.7 and Member M. Dunn’s concerns regarding scale and massing. Member M. Dunn stated this area provides a good opportunity to build the density needed by Fort Collins; however, she noted Section 3.4.7 discusses massing, building articulation, and gradual massing transitions between new development and historic resources. Mr. Bertolini noted there will be some interplay between this standard and density requirements from Planning staff. Member M. Dunn commented on the appropriate transition between the Elizabeth Hotel and a one- story historic structure. She stated the larger gap between the new and historic buildings on this site is helpful and she commended the design for this particular site; however, she would not like to see this as a precedent for dealing with this Code section in the future. Member Rose stated he was not as sure the proposed design works. He expressed concern about the proximity of the new building to the historic structures and about the new building dwarfing the barn in size. He appreciated the fact the buildings are being restored; however, he suggested more could be done to scale back the mass of the new building. Member M. Dunn commented on the roof line coming down to the top of the second story, which makes the building feel more like a two-story building. Member Guenther expressed support for the scale and massing and commended the fact that the historic structures are being saved and showcased. Chair Knierim concurred and stated the proposed relocation of the historic buildings makes sense for the site layout. Member M. Dunn asked Commissioners to discuss Section 3.4.7.1 regarding articulated similar widths. Member Rose commented on the roof forms not being reflective of the structures on the site. Member Carlock stated she has no issues with the gambrel roof and stated another pitched roof would make the building look too institutional. Member Guenther agreed and commented on Fort Collins’ eclectic architecture. Member M. Dunn stated she does not see much echoing of the widths of the houses and barn aside from some of the side gables. She suggested the applicant look at the articulation being better aligned with the widths of the historic buildings. She suggested moving the gambrel roofs and creating some Harmony Road-facing gabled sections. She commented on not being able to think of any barns in Fort Collins with a gambrel roof; however, she stated the typology fits the feel of the project. She suggested it be used in another location on the project rather than being next to the barn. Historic Preservation Commission Page 5 March 16, 2022 Member M. Dunn asked Commissioners for thoughts on the window patterning. Member Carlock stated she likes the dormer windows on the gambrel building stating they help to alleviate the massing issue. Member Rose questioned the use of shutters stating they are not typically found on farmsteads. Member Guenther stated the shutters are probably meant to soften the building and he supported their use. He stated he believes Section 3.4.7 is met. Member M. Dunn suggested changing the windows to four light windows would help better meet the Code requirement. Member W. Dunn stated the Code is met based on the doors. Chair Knierim discussed the possibility of removing some of the shutters. Member Carlock replied that would eliminate some of the symmetry. Member Rose agreed removing some of the shutters could be an improvement. Chair Knierim requested the Commissioners discuss materials. Member M. Dunn commented on the Code language which states the predominant material only needs to be on the lower story façade until any stepbacks. Additionally, she stated other colors could be used based on the Code language. Member Guenther noted the shutters help to soften the all-white building façade. He commented on the wide variety of patterns used. Member M. Dunn commented the stone helps address Section 3.4.7.3. She asked if the stone is real or simulated. Mr. Payne replied the stone is manufactured in a field stone pattern with a variety of colors. Chair Knierim stated the stone fits with the overall character of the project given the thoughtfulness of using field stone rather than a cut stone. Member M. Dunn stated the simulated stone would need to be evaluated to determine whether it is an authentic, durable, and high-quality material per the Code. Member M. Dunn stated she did not have any concerns about the Secretary of the Interior standards as related to the historic buildings. Chair Knierim agreed. Member Rose noted there was a question from staff about the fenestration on the barn, though he stated he did not have any concerns about that as the new construction on the barn will bring it back to a form more like the original. Member M. Dunn commended the use of the murals as they are just paint, and they add a whimsical farm sense. She suggested a more simple design for the barn doors as there is no evidence of what they were originally. Chair Knierim stated moving the buildings is not an issue as the original locations are close and moving them does not create a false sense of history. Member M. Dunn stated she was concerned about the entrance gate towering over the house. Mr. Bertolini stated that item would fall under the Secretary of the Interior standard 9 dealing with design compatibility. Member Carlock noted those types of signs are common for ranches. [Timestamp: 7:30 p.m.]