Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHistoric Preservation Commission - Minutes - 11/16/2022Historic Preservation Commission Page 1 November 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 And Remotely Via Zoom Walter Dunn Eric Guenther Anne Nelsen Jenna Edwards Bonnie Gibson Regular Meeting November 16, 2022 Minutes • CALL TO ORDER Chair Knierim called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m. • ROLL CALL PRESENT: Meg Dunn, Jenna Edwards, Bonnie Gibson, Eric Guenther, Kurt Knierim, Anne Nelsen, Jim Rose ABSENT: Margo Carlock, Walter Dunn STAFF: Maren Bzdek, Jim Bertolini, Claire Havelda, Yani Jones, Melissa Matsunaka • AGENDA REVIEW Ms. Bzdek 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 November 16, 2022 • CONSENT AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 19, 2022. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the October 19, 2022 regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. 2. 2023 HPC WORK PLAN ADOPTION The purpose of this item is to approve the 2023 HPC Work Plan. 3. 1110 MAPLE – SINGLE-FAMILY DEMOLITION NOTICE The purpose of this item is to approve the Single-Family Demolition Notice for 1110 Maple. 4. 516 N GRANT – SINGLE-FAMILY DEMOLITION NOTICE The purpose of this item is to approve the Single-Family Demolition Notice for 516 N Grant. Eric Guenther moved that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the Consent Agenda of the November 16, 2022 regular meeting as presented. Jim Rose seconded. The motion passed 7-0. • CONSENT AGENDA FOLLOW-UP Member M. Dunn asked about the Code requirements for allowing a demolition with no plans for a replacement building in place, as is the case for 1110 Maple Street. Mr. Bertolini replied there is no requirement that a plan to redevelop a property be in place for a demolition permit; however, if the applicant ultimately returns with a plan for a non-single-family use, the development review process would come into play. Member M. Dunn noted the Code would not allow redevelopment with something other than a single- family home if the previous property was eligible for preservation. Mr. Bertolini confirmed that information and stated that is a current gap in the Code. • DISCUSSION AGENDA 5. REPORT ON STAFF ACTIVITIES SINCE THE LAST MEETING DESCRIPTION: Staff is tasked with an array of different responsibilities including code- required project review decisions on historic properties, support to other standing and special work groups across the City organization, and education & outreach programming. This report will provide highlights for the benefit of Commission members and the public, and for transparency regarding decisions made without the input of the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). STAFF: Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner Staff Report Ms. Jones reported on the activities of the past couple of weeks, including a project at 223 Linden Street, an intensive level survey for 147 North Washington Avenue, and education and outreach events. Ms. Bzdek reviewed the Certified Local Government annual report, which is a requirement from the state Historic Preservation Office. Historic Preservation Commission Page 3 November 16, 2022 Public Input None. 6. 1801 SHEELY DRIVE (LESLIE P. AND RUTH A. WARE PROPERTY) – APPLICATON FOR FORT COLLINS LANDMARK DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION: This item is to consider the request for a recommendation to City Council for landmark designation of the Leslie P. and Ruth A. Ware Property at 1801 Sheely Dr. APPLICANTS: Ralph and Cheryl Olson (owners) Staff and Applicant Presentations Ms. Jones outlined the role of the Commission and noted this is an owner-initiated landmark designation application. She discussed the property location, history, and architecture of the home, which was built in 1961. She stated the home has significance under standard three, design and construction, because of its Usonian architecture, and maintains exterior integrity in all seven aspects. Public Input None. Commission Discussion Member M. Dunn asked if the outdoor cooking area is original and if there is any information on the oval pavers. Ms. Jones replied she did not believe the outdoor cooking area was original; however, the pavers in the front yard and those leading up to the breezeway are original. Member M. Dunn requested that information be included in the report Chair Knierim stated this home is a great example of Usonian architecture and there are not many in Fort Collins. Member Nelsen stated the house is very unique and well-preserved and she would support designation. Chair Knierim stated this would be a good addition to other eligible and landmarked properties in the neighborhood. Member M. Dunn commended the level of integrity of the property. Member M. Dunn moved that the Historic Preservation Commission adopt a written resolution recommending that City Council adopt an ordinance to designate the Leslie P. and Ruth A. Ware property at 1801 Sheely Drive as a Fort Collins Landmark, finding that this property is eligible due to its high level of significance to Fort Collins under significance standard number three, design and construction, as supported not only by the analysis provided in the staff report and the landmark nomination dated October 20th, 2022, but also due to the high level of public interest in this property during construction, as well as thereafter, and that the property very clearly conveys the significance through remarkable integrity of location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association to a strong degree, and finding also that the designation of this property will promote the policies and purposes of the City as specified in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. Member Nelsen seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0. Historic Preservation Commission Page 4 November 16, 2022 7. 209 CHERRY STREET – CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Redevelopment of the vacant lot at the southwest corner of Cherry and Mason Streets for a 114-unit mixed use building. The decision maker for this Type 2 Review will be the Planning and Zoning Commission. APPLICANT: Ashley Stiles, Tribe Development Company, Fort Collins, CO (owner/developer) Chris Aronson, VFLA (design) Staff and Applicant Presentations Mr. Bertolini stated this item is a conceptual review for the redevelopment of a vacant lot. He noted this is an opportunity for the Commission to provide initial design feedback under the Land Use Code Section 3.4.7. He outlined the proposal for a mixed-use building at the southwest corner of Mason and Cherry Streets, noting the only historic resource in the 200-foot area of adjacency is the locally landmarked historic trolley barn. He discussed the history of the landmarking of the trolley barn and showed renderings of the proposed building in relation to the trolley barn. Chris Aronson, VFLA, discussed the proposed project for the 114-unit mixed-use building and discussed the ways in which it will play off the industrial details of the trolley barn. He provided renderings of the proposed building exterior, interior, and landscaping and discussed the building’s step backs that help relate it to the trolley barn. He noted the building will have internal parking on the first floor and a basement level parking garage. Additionally, Mr. Aronson provided details on the proposed materials which also help relate it to the trolley barn. Public Input None. Commission Discussion Chair Knierim requested the Commission discuss massing and building articulation. He stated he appreciated the thought that went into the design, particularly the first two stories as they relate to the trolley barn. He also commended the wide alleyway which allows for the trolley barn to be visible. Member Nelsen concurred the two-story step back makes sense and commended the design for utilizing the space between the buildings in a thoughtful way. She stated there is a large enough distance between the buildings that the height of the new building is not a concern. Member M. Dunn asked if there could be a larger step back on the side of the building next to the trolley barn. Mr. Aronson replied the Code requires the ten-foot step back along Cherry and there is no minimum requirement for the step back along the alleyway between this building and the trolley barn. Member M. Dunn commented on a possible shift in the units to address massing and commented on the diagonal cut in the building at the corner of Cherry and the diagonal pedestrian alley. Chair Knierim requested the Commission discuss materials. Member M. Dunn supported the use of brick and various faux wood options. Member Nelsen asked if any materials other than brick were considered. Mr. Aronson replied the client likes brick and opted for black over red. Member Nelsen asked about the other materials proposed. Mr. Aronson replied the goal was to lighten up the black brick and utilize durable materials; however, details have yet to be determined. He also noted there will be two different types of windows, those in the commercial spaces and those in the residential spaces. Additionally, there will be other materiality in the balconies. Historic Preservation Commission Page 5 November 16, 2022 Member Nelsen expressed concern the design is attempting to make up for a lack of articulation with additional materials. Member Rose concurred with Member Nelsen and noted the trolley barn is only one material. Chair Knierim requested the Commission discuss fenestration. Member M. Dunn stated the standard is well met on the first two floors. Member Nelsen discussed the window muntins. Chair Knierim requested the Commission discuss design details. Member M. Dunn stated she struggles with seeing the horizontal ties between the buildings. Mr. Aronson discussed possible options. Member Nelsen noted the two buildings do not have to completely match one another. She stated the proposed design is a good start. Member Rose commended the way the design details its connection to the surroundings and stated it is quite relatable for pedestrians. Chair Knierim requested the Commission discuss the visibility of historic features. He noted the alleyway between the buildings functions well to provide visibility. 8. 121 WEST OLIVE STREET – CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Redevelopment of the current Bohlender Funeral Chapel at 121 W. Olive Street at the southeast corner of Olive and Mason Streets for a 177-unit mixed use building. The decision maker for this Type 2 Review will be the Planning and Zoning Commission. APPLICANT: Jeanne Shaffer, Confluent Development, (applicant/developer) Open Studio Design (design professional) Staff and Applicant Presentations Mr. Bertolini outlined the role of the Commission to provide initial design feedback for the demolition of an existing building and construction of a new six-story mixed-use building with 177 residential units and a commercial space. He discussed the historic resources that are within the area of adjacency, including the Armstrong Hotel, which staff is recommending be the basis for design compatibility, and other resources that are recommended as being eligible based on a reconnaissance survey; however, neither of those resources abuts the development site. Mr. Bertolini discussed the history of the Armstrong Hotel noting it was landmarked based on the events and trends standard and architecture standard. He stated the intensive level survey that was completed about a year ago for the existing building showed it had been heavily altered and therefore did not meet the requirements for landmark eligibility; therefore, demolition is allowed. Jeanne Shaffer, Confluent Development, discussed the proposed project and noted her company manages the projects it owns. Jenni Lane, Open Studio Architecture, discussed the architecture of the proposed building and commented on the ways in which it relates to the Armstrong Hotel building. She discussed the proposed materials, colors, and window patterning. Public Input None. Historic Preservation Commission Page 6 November 16, 2022 Commission Discussion Chair Knierim requested the Commission discuss massing and building articulation. Member M. Dunn asked if 111 West Olive, which is an example of mid-century commercial wrap on a residential property, the back building of 307 South College, or the telephone building at the corner of Magnolia and Mason were considered as historic resources. Mr. Bertolini replied the survey is underway for the telephone exchange building and it looks like it will likely be eligible under standard one based on preliminary information. He stated there is not a survey for 307 South College and the intensive survey for 111 West Olive showed the property was not eligible based on renovations over time. Member M. Dunn stated the Armstrong is too far away from this building for the step backs to really matter in relation to that building. Ms. Lane commented on the step backs and associated Code requirements. Member Nelsen stated the massing on the Olive and Mason sides offers a friendly approach to the building. She commended the punched openings. Chair Knierim requested the Commission discuss building materials. Member Nelsen asked if the white aspects are going to be corrugated metal. Ms. Lane replied in the affirmative and stated it will be a cream-colored metal with a matte finish and will serve as a nod to the agricultural history of Fort Collins. Member Nelsen commended the front of the building as being tailored and stated the corrugated metal seems to not compliment the architecture in the context of the building. Ms. Lane noted the material would be matte in finish and is also quite durable. Member Edwards agreed the corrugated metal feels a bit out of place. 9. REMOTE PARTICIPATION ORDINANCE DESCRIPTION: This item is to consider the City Council Ordinance to Allow Remote Participation STAFF: Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Manager Ms. Bzdek stated Council will be considering a new ordinance to replace the emergency ordinance that was in place during the pandemic that allowed for remote participation for quasi- judicial commissions and Council. She noted the Commission is not required to provide input but has been given the option. She outlined the benefits of continuing remote participation including greater participation and flexibility. Chair Knierim stated the intent of this is positive and remote participation worked well during the pandemic; however, he stated in person participation by Commissioners aids in cohesion, relationships, and candor. He suggested it be preferred for Commissioners to be in person. Member Nelsen concurred being in person has benefits; however, she stated it is important for the Commission to be able to accept any member who may not be able to attend in person; therefore, she would be hesitant to state that is a preference. She also noted public engagement increased with remote participation. Guenther suggested the language related to allowing members to participate remotely if they are not feeling well should be expanded to include travel and family issues. Gibson concurred and noted in person participation can be intimidating for members of the public. Member Guenther made a motion that the Historic Preservation Commission recommend to City Council that remote participation by both Commission members and members of the public be approved, although it is encouraged that when and where possible, members of the Commission do attempt to attend the meetings in person. Member M. Dunn seconded the motion.