Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHistoric Preservation Commission - MINUTES - 01/17/2024Page 1 Jim Rose, Chair Location: Bonnie Gibson, Vice Chair Council Chambers, 300 Laporte Margo Carlock And remotely via Zoom Jenna Edwards Anne Nelsen David Woodlee Tom Wilson Staff Liaison: Vacant Seat Maren Bzdek Vacant Seat Historic Preservation Manager Regular Meeting January 17, 2024 Minutes • CALL TO ORDER Chair Rose called the meeting to order at 5:31 p.m. • ROLL CALL PRESENT: Margo Carlock, Jenna Edwards, Bonnie Gibson, Anne Nelsen (arrived at 5:42 PM), Jim Rose, Tom Wilson, David Woodlee ABSENT: None STAFF: Heather Jarvis, Yani Jones, Melissa Matsunaka • AGENDA REVIEW Ms. Jones stated there were no changes to the published agenda. • CONSENT AGENDA REVIEW No items were pulled from consent. • STAFF REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. • COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. • CONSENT AGENDA Historic Preservation Commission Page 2 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 15, 2023. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the November 15, 2023 regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. Vice Chair Gibson made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Carlock, to approve the consent agenda for the January 17, 2024 meeting as presented. Yeas: Carlock, Edwards, Gibson, Wilson, Woodlee, and Rose. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. • DISCUSSION AGENDA 2. REPORT ON STAFF ACTIVITIES SINCE THE LAST MEETING 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). Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner, discussed some of the staff activities that have occurred since the last meeting, including a complementary design review for an Art in Public Places mural on the retaining wall at the Poudre River Whitewater Park and surveys of the Lloyd’s Art Shop building which resulted in a determination of ineligibility for landmark designation and the Watkins and Pennington Building, or Wilson Block, which resulted in a determination of eligibility for landmark designation under standard one. Ms. Jones also reported on education and outreach highlights, including the William Robb and Modern Architecture lecture presented by Ron Sladek and the Martin Luther King, Jr. Day celebration at the Lincoln Center. Ms. Jones mentioned the Historic Preservation newsletter. 3. 401 S COLLEGE – CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DESCRIPTION: Conceptual design for a 115+/- unit, mixed-use apartment building in the former bank building at 401 S College Avenue. Project includes adaptive reuse of the vacant historic resource and construction of a new, 6-story mixed-use building on the west side of the 1.7-acre property. APPLICANT/ OWNER: Post Modern Development (JD Padilla) STAFF: Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Manager Staff Presentation Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Manager, noted this item is a conceptual review and the Commission will be providing comments under three categories: how the proposed treatment of the historic bank building meets the Secretary of the Interior standards for rehabilitation, how the design of the proposed new construction meets the design compatibility standards in Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code, and whether the proposed modification request is sufficiently justified under at least one of the required criteria. Ms. Bzdek also noted this project, if submitted, would return before the Commission for a recommendation to the decision maker. Page 3 Ms. Bzdek outlined the adjustments to the packet that have occurred since the work session, including an updated presentation provided by the project architect, information to address some of the questions provided at the work session, the addition of History Colorado’s biographical sketch of James Hunter, the addition of an original scanned brochure produced by the Hunter and Associates architectural firm in the 1960’s, the addition of some slides, and the addition of two written public comments. Ms. Bzdek discussed the existing property noting it is considered a historic resource as a landmark-eligible site. She stated the 1967 Poudre Valley National Bank building on the site was designed by James Hunter and Associates and the building is eligible for Fort Collins landmark designation under standard one for events as a representation of a movement of the oldest remaining bank in the original downtown core to a location optimized for the auto-centric mid-20th century culture that had ample parking, drive-through tellers, and modernized banking operations which included the first use of computers for bookkeeping and account tracking in northern Colorado. Additionally, the building was found to be eligible under standard three for design and construction for a commercial design that is reflective of the International style, more specifically as an example of a New Formalist commercial architecture that emerged within the modern architectural movement. She noted the design is exemplary of the work of James Hunter and Associates commercial work in Colorado and she provided information about James Hunter’s other work in the area, including many buildings on the CSU campus. Ms. Bzdek provided more information about the brise soleil solar shading system which was an important design element that combined both a decorative and functional contribution to the structure. She provided photos of the building and detailed its architectural features. Ms. Bzdek noted the project calls for retaining the bank building on the east side of the property and replacing the drive-through ATM structures on the west side of the property with a new six-story mixed-use building with parking on the first two levels and residential units on the remaining levels. The proposal for the bank building includes significant alterations, conversion of the upper floors from office spaces to residential units, adding a fourth story addition, relocating the brise soleil screens to the concrete pillars and placing some of them in horizontal form over the band of windows, and connecting the bank building to the new building with a pedestrian bridge. Ms. Bzdek stated staff’s initial analysis of the proposal shows that the removal and relocation of the screens is out of compliance with several of the Secretary of the Interior standards, though the applicant has a different take on compliance. She stated standards 2, 5, and 9 address alterations or removal of distinctive and character-defining materials and features on historic buildings and standard 3 prohibits moving those materials to alternative locations on the structure when that movement may create a false record of historic development on the building. Ms. Bzdek discussed the rooftop addition noting it may not be truly necessary in order to achieve the proposed adaptive reuse relative to its impact on the historic character of the building and, if that were to be established, whether its design impact has been sufficiently minimized. Ms. Bzdek stated a question came up at the work session regarding how to address the impact of an addition on the building’s existing passive solar lighting plan, which would be impacted by the loss of the central skylight with the addition. She stated the central skylight is not visible from the street, but is a functional feature that impacts the interior design primarily. She noted there is technical guidance provided on the Secretary of the Interior standards as they relate to building energy performance and that guidance calls for the retention of existing features that contribute positively to the structure’s energy conserving potential and performance. Ms. Bzdek provided a photo from a brochure advertising the opening of the bank which shows the light well in the lobby from the rooftop skylight. Ms. Bzdek discussed the design and proposed location of the pedestrian bridge and noted there were some public comments on the topic from the Downtown Development Authority. She stated the current staff analysis is to encourage the applicant to work with the infill building to meet the project needs as much as possible in the new construction, and if necessary, to focus any modification requests on the design compatibility standards for compatibility with a historic resource in such a way that the project can demand less of the historic bank building in terms of achieving project goals. Page 4 Ms. Bzdek noted the modification request in this case involves the applicant seeking leniency on application of the Secretary of the Interior standards to the historic resource. She stated staff’s opinion is that is not a strategy that would generally be supported, and the applicant has not yet sufficiently justified any of the four requirements for granting a modification. Applicant Presentation Steve Schroyer, Schroyer Resources, introduced himself. Chris Aronson, VFLA Architects, stated the proposed project would consist of approximately 114 units with 121 on-site parking spaces, which is 30 more than the number required. He stated the project is in the Canyon Avenue subdistrict and is allowed nine stories and 115 feet of height, though the proposed new building is six stories and 75 feet in height. Mr. Aronson showed photos of the site and stated some of the exterior panels have been damaged through maintenance or installation of mechanical equipment. He detailed the proposal relocation of the panels noting they will remain intact as a single unit to allow them to be replaced in their current location if desired in the future. Mr. Aronson discussed the challenges of the existing bank building stating the interior is somewhat suffocating as the density of the brise soleil screen does not allow for any views. He stated the proposal is for a full adaptive reuse of the property to bring it up to modern day standards and to provide additional residential units in the downtown area. He also stated this project would provide an opportunity to continue the DDA alleyway project between the new building and existing building connecting to Lucky’s Market. Mr. Aronson stated the existing building was designed to have six more floors built above the existing structure. He detailed the proposal to relocate the brise soleil panels in a way to keep the top of the panel aligning with the existing top of the brise soleil and relocating the panels in a horizontal fashion in alignment with their current location. He stated those changes will let more natural light into the building and allow for better views for tenants. Mr. Aronson discussed the proposed painting and material changes for the exterior of the bank building. He stated the design team has yet to get into the design details for the proposed new building. Mr. Aronson discussed the Secretary of the Interior standards and stated the design team believes the project meets standards 2 through 10 with the requested modifications. Commission Questions Commissioner Carlock asked if the individual apartments would reach the outer walls of the second floor. Mr. Aronson replied in the affirmative. Commissioner Carlock asked if any of the units are slated to meet the affordability requirements of the City. Mr. Aronson replied they will be market-rate units. Commissioner Nelsen asked why the new building is proposed to only be six stories when it could be nine. Mr. Aronson replied economics and parking requirements were behind the decision. Commissioner Nelsen asked about the documentation of the proposal to add floors to the bank building. Mr. Aronson replied the structural engineer cited the full concrete walls, complete basement, and eight 48-inch caissons that are sixteen feet deep; therefore, the foundation was designed to hold a nine-story building though there were no specific drawings or plans for that construction. Commissioner Nelsen asked about natural ventilation being a challenge. Mr. Aronson replied the windows are currently inoperable, and making them operable brings up the question of how much air flow would occur with the brise soleil in place. Commissioner Nelsen asked about the gap between the windows and the brise soleil. Mr. Aronson replied it is about three and a half feet. Commissioner Nelsen asked if other natural light sources such as skylights have been considered. Mr. Aronson replied the proposal is to replace the solid panel storefront with glass. He stated skylights pose a structural challenge. Commissioner Nelsen asked if the desire for more natural light is coming from a marketability standpoint or a Code standpoint. Mr. Aronson replied it is coming from a marketability standpoint. Page 5 Commissioner Nelsen asked how it came to be that the units have to be residential. Mr. Schroyer replied the marketplace was analyzed and there are a high number of vacant commercial buildings. He noted commercial uses are slated for the first level. Commissioner Nelsen asked if it is primarily one residential floor that would be impacted by the brise soleil. Mr. Schroyer replied in the affirmative and stated there would be nine units on that floor. He stated he was unsure any type of use could be marketed for the second floor as it exists with the brise soleil. Commissioner Nelsen asked if the brise soleil would act to decrease the amount of solar gain in the building and therefore decrease energy costs in the summer. Mr. Schroyer replied in the affirmative but noted the windows will all be replaced with more energy efficient glazing. Mr. Aronson noted one of the reasons for relocating the brise soleil is to maintain some solar control in both the winter and the summer. Commissioner Gibson requested additional details on the relocation of the brise soleil. Mr. Aronson stated they will be relocated horizontally to help provide shading as the sun is going down. Commissioner Nelsen asked where the circle aspects of the brise soleil will be located. Mr. Aronson replied they will stay within the panel pattern. Commissioner Nelsen asked if there is a plan for how the brise soleil will be attached to the walls. Mr. Aronson stated the design team has not spent a great deal of time focusing on how they are currently installed but the plan is to perhaps have some type of steel angle for the panels to rest upon so as to limit the number of connections. Commissioner Woodlee asked if the brise soleil panels on the building are original. Mr. Aronson replied in the affirmative and stated they are either bronze or aluminum. Commissioner Woodlee suggested the design team consider snow retention and weight distribution on the panels if they are relocated horizontally. Commissioner Edwards asked if there is any type of design concept for the new building. Mr. Aronson replied in the negative and showed a mood board with some very conceptual ideas. He commented on Section 3.4.7 criteria that the exterior should have a similar size of material to the historic resource, and given that is all stucco and concrete which is scaleless, there is a question as to the cladding of the new building. Mr. Schroyer requested the Commission provide specific feedback as to whether the panels can be relocated as the second floor cannot be rented without that change and that may make the project infeasible. Public Input None. Commission Discussion Chair Rose noted the two written comments provided to the Commission, one from the DDA Director, were sympathetic to the need for a development like this, but were also sensitive to the fact the proposed design would drastically change what is seen in the eligible structure. Commissioner Nelsen noted staff has identified a number of the Secretary of the Interior standards that would not be met by moving the panels. She stated she does not believe there has been sufficient documentation as to why the project would not be feasible unless the panels were moved. She stated modifying the brise soleil screen as proposed seems like it takes away the essence of the building. Mr. Schroyer stated the team has looked at different options, including cutting the panels, but are trying to respect them. He noted the Clark building on campus removed all of its panels. Commissioner Nelsen also commented on the possible impacts of snow on the historic material if the panels were to be oriented horizontally. Page 6 Commissioner Woodlee read from the Secretary of the Interior website a passage noting it may be difficult or impossible to convert some special use properties for new uses without major exterior alterations resulting in loss of historic character and integrity. Chair Rose noted eligibility is often determined by character-defining features and stated the brise soleil is such a dominant feature on the building, perhaps the most important character-defining feature. He questioned whether the building would even be eligible without that feature. Mr. Aronson asked Commissioners would rather see the panels be kept intact and relocated; therefore, they could be relocated exactly as they are now at some point in the future, or be cut where the windows are located on all four sides, which he stated the design team felt to be more invasive and disrespectful to the panels themselves. Commissioner Wilson stated the vertical nature of the panels is important and noted the snow load on them if they were oriented horizontally could be prohibitively expensive. Chair Rose suggested the possibility of piercing the panels to allow light in while still leaving them in place. Commissioner Nelsen concurred the screens are important but there may be a way to modify them that better follows the Secretary of the Interior standards a bit more closely. Commissioner Carlock suggested piercing the panels while maintaining their overall framework may place the Commission in the same position with the Secretary of the Interior standards. She suggested window coverings will likely block west and east facing windows anyway. She noted the Secretary of the Interior standards allow for modifications if a project meets a strong community need, which this project does not do as it is not affordable housing. She asked if the project would essentially be infeasible without additional light coming in those windows. Mr. Schroyer replied it likely would. Commissioner Wilson asked if the contract on the property is contingent. Mr. Schroyer replied in the affirmative and stated this property will be hindered with this problem moving forward and noted it could be sitting vacant for decades to come with no one maintaining the historic components. Chair Rose noted the Secretary of the Interior standards are subjective. He encouraged the design team to look at some alternatives and noted the Commission is open to considering the difficulties the team has in making a useful project. Commissioner Nelsen commented on the fourth-floor addition eliminating the skylight and asked Commissioners to weigh in. Commissioner Gibson expressed concern about that possibility and stated that even though the skylight cannot be seen from the street, it seems to be a substantial architectural feature of the structure. Chair Rose stated he would have a hard time identifying the skylight as a character-defining feature because it is not visible from the exterior and the interior is not part of the Commission’s purview. Mr. Schroyer noted the skylight provides issues in that it goes through the entire building making the programming of the interior difficult. Commissioner Carlock stated the inside of the building is the best part and the way the light comes in from the skylight is defining; however, she noted the Commission is not called upon to pass judgment on interior features. Mr. Aronson asked if the Commission is opposed to adding on the fourth floor if there is some way to potentially retain the skylight in some fashion from the fourth floor. Mr. Schroyer stated the fourth floor and removal of the skylight is important as the atrium portion of the building would not work for the proposed use. Chair Rose reiterated his opinion that the skylight is out of the Commission’s purview and stated the proposed fourth floor is designed as it should be. Page 7 Commissioner Nelsen stated there could be differing opinions on the skylight. She also noted the pedestrian bridge is also worth discussing. Mr. Schroyer stated the pedestrian bridge was placed to provide access from the bank building to the covered parking and was raised to allow for the continuation of the alleyway from Lucky’s Market into downtown. Commissioner Nelsen stated the issue is more the placement of the pedestrian bridge in relation to the original building as it may be too high. Mr. Aronson stated lowering it could be explored but it was placed at the third level as there may potentially be fire access requirements. Additionally, ADA access would be maintained as the third floors of the buildings would be aligned. Commissioner Nelsen commented on the possibility of adding a story to the new building and eliminating the fourth floor on the original building. Commissioner Carlock asked how many office spaces currently exist on the second floor. Mr. Schroyer replied he could provide that information but was unsure. • CONSIDERATION OF CITIZEN-PULLED CONSENT ITEMS None. • OTHER BUSINESS None. • ADJOURNMENT Chair Rose adjourned the meeting at 7:36 p.m. Minutes prepared by and respectfully submitted by Melissa Matsunaka.