HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 08/01/20020 0
•
Chairperson Gavaldon called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m..
Roll Call: Carpenter, Craig, Torgerson, Bernth, Gavaldon. Members Colton and
Meyer were absent.
Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Shepard, Jones, Olt, Stringer, Virata, Moore,
Harridan and Dairies.
Agenda Review: Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent
and Discussion Agendas:
Consent Agenda:
1. Minutes of the December 6, 2001, February 21 (Continued),
June 20 (Continued), and July 18, 2002 Planning and Zoning
Board Hearings.
2. #28-02 Modification of Standards — Park Central Condos
Discussion Agenda:
3. #34-02 University Center for the Arts — Site Plan Advisory Review
3. Modification of Standards — Fossil Lake P.U.D., Swift Addition
(County Referral)
4. #24-94A Lindenmeier Estates P.U.D. - Final
Member Bernth moved to approved Consent Item 1, the December 6, 2001 and
July 18, 2002 minutes and Consent Item 2.
Member Craig seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 5-0.
0
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
August 1, 2002
Page 2
Project: University Center for the Arts Site Plan Advisory
Review.
Project Description: Request to renovate the former Fort Collins High
School building and construct a 28,830 gross sq. ft.
performance hall, instrumental rehearsal area, dance
studio, and support space addition. The main
addition along the west fagade will be constructed
with a pre -cast concrete base treatment, brick veneer,
precast concrete columns and cornice details, and
metal detailing, to reflect the character of the existing,
historic brick building. The school is located at 1400
Remington Street and is zoned NCL, Neighborhood
Conservation Low Density.
Recommendation: disapproval
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence:
A verbatim transcript is attached for this project.
u
Is
MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Held Thursday, August 1, 2002
At City Council Chambers
300 West Laporte Street
Fort Collins, Colorado
In the matter of the CSU Performing Arts Center
Commission members present:
Jerry Gavaldon, Chair
Jennifer Carpenter
Sally Craig
Dan Bernth
Mikal Torgerson
Staff present:
Paul Eckman, City Attorney's Office
Cameron Gloss, Planning Department
Georgiana Deines, Planning Department
1
1 MR. GAVALDON: We'll go to the
2 discussion agenda, and our first item will be number 3,
3 number C, center for the art site, advisory review. This is
4 an advisory to the State Board of Agriculture. And Karen
5 will lead off with the staff presentation, and then we'll go
6 to an applicant presentation, and then we'll go to the
7 citizen for public inputs.
8 If we have a group or an organized group, I would
9 need to know that so we can allocate you adequate time.
10 Typically, input is limited to four minutes per person,
11 similar to what we do for City Council. Dan, do you want to
12 go ahead and declare your . . .
13 MR. BERNTH: I will have to declare -- I will not
14 be able to hear this, as I live right across the street from
15 this, so I do have a conflict of interest.
16 MR. GAVALDON: Thank you. Cameron, anything you
17 want to add on that process?
18 MR. GLOSS: Maybe just a reminder for the Board,
19 that this is a location, character, and extent review, based
20 on State statutes. It's very similar to what we do with the
21 School District and the County in our relationship, in that
22 this is advisory. It's as Mr. Chairman mentioned, and the
23 decision ultimately rests on the State Board of Agriculture.
24 You're making a recommendation to them this evening.
25 I've got some context that I'd like to start with
9
3
1
and then go into, very briefly, an analysis relative to the
2
three criteria.
3
The site is located on the east side of
4
Remington, just south of Pitkin Street. This is an east
5
side neighborhood planning area. The east side neighborhood
6
plan was approved in 1986. The site is bounded on the north
7
by Pitkin Street, and you have CSU over to the west, west of
8
College, South College Avenue. And you have the
9
neighborhood immediately to the north that is zoned NCM.
10
Another contextual area photograph. I think this
11
is good at showing the pedestrian underpass underneath
12
College Avenue and the park immediately across the street.
13
This is a site and landscape plan. You do have a
14
copy, a full-sized copy, in your records that -- I'd show
15
this a little bit better, but essentially, you have an
16
addition that's being proposed of 28,830 square feet. That
17
would be to the west, the front side -- I'm sorry, I
18
misplaced my pointer. It's this area right here, projecting
19
on the west side of the building, fronting onto Remington
20
Street. And you have a field of parking that would be
21
reconfigured that's on the north side of the building,
22
immediately adjacent to Pitkin. That would be reconfigured
23
to accommodate additional parking there. Thank you.
24
The parking area here on the north side of the
25
building, the primary addition here, west and northwest of
4
1 the building.
2 And you've seen these drawings before, with one,
3 I think, substantial change from the previous work sessions
4 where the Board has been presented with information, in that
5 this is the addition here, and you see that the cornice line
6 of the main part of the building is being carried along,
7 it's about 47 and a half feet, which virtually matches
8 what's existing on the north side of the building.
9 And this, the addition, you pick up on a lot of
10 the architectural elements that you see in the 1924 original
11 building. You can see this inset right here that has a
12 little bit of articulation of these different elements,
13 column -type treatment, some steel breaks that would mimic
14 some of the others you see here on the facade, as long as a
15 very strong face treatment and then a middle and this strong
16 cornice line.
17 Staff, I think, is very impressed with the
18 response of the applicant with respect to this treatment, as
19 far as it relates to the rhythm and spacing of these bays on
20 the existing building, how that is reflected in the addition
21 without exactly copying it.
22 This is a shot that was taken in the mid-'30s.
23 This shows the original 1924 construction, I think, very
24 well of the building. And you can see the track there at
25 the back of the site, what is now improved track, and Pitkin
0
5
1
Street here to the north and Remington curving around here
2
on the west side.
3
This development really epitomizes the city
4
beautiful movement which was started right about the turn of
5
the century here. And you see it, I think, exemplified also
6
in the Denver area. I want to show you some shots of the
7
Denver Civic Center and how it actually ties into the
8
architect that designed this building. It was designed, as
9
I said, back in 1924, completed rather quickly.
10
I think what really characterizes this period in
11
American design history is really a high regard for the
12
aesthetic quality of buildings and communities and the fact
13
that you have very spacious green areas around buildings,
14
and you can see it here, with the park in the front of the
15
building, across the street on Remington. All the greenery
16
around the building is very significant as a part of this
17
movement.
18
And buildings that took -- typically are knee on
19
classical style and quite beautiful and balanced within that
20
field of green; and this is a shot of the 1970 master plan
21
for the Denver Civic Center, which is, I think, one of the
22
best examples in the United States of the city beautiful
23
movement. And you can see that relationship between these
24
neoclassical buildings sitting within this larger green
25
area, in this case some very formalized space, some walkway
3
I action and some water features that are typical.
2 And this is the construction,of that Denver civic
3 center, about that same time. What's interesting to note,
4 this building, which is the City and County building in
5 Denver, was designed by the same architect or actually, he
6 wasn't part of the team that designed this building. His
7 name is William Bowman. Quite well -know architect in
8 Denver. He designed several civic buildings throughout the
9 state, several schools, and he's very highly regarded within
10 this whole movement. You can see, if you think about Fort
11 Collins High School and you're relating it to this
12 photograph, you see that field of green in front and then
13 the neoclassical architecture in back and how well those
14 relate to each other.
15 The great example we have in Fort Collins, other
16 than this high school site, is the CSU oval area. It's just
17 a wonderful example, and this is kind of the classic shot
18 you think of the CSU campus, the walkway coming right down
19 through the middle of the oval.
20 What's interesting is the building that fronts
21 onto the oval. And again, you see it. This is a wonderful
22 building, Ammons Hall, which is on the north end of the
23 oval. Again, you see that relationship. You see the
24 architectural treatment.
25 And another wonderful example, we see these
rI
0
7
1
columns, very similar to what you see in Fort Collins High
2
School. In fact, it's somewhat reminiscent, when you look
3
at this element of the facade. This is the administration
4
building at CSU, and looking at this, I guess it's hard for
5
the staff to imagine that you would put an addition on this
6
building that would project into the space.
7
In fact, it's sited somewhat similarly to Fort
8
Collins High School in that the oval, which is somewhat off
9
the picture, just right off the picture here, does a curve
10
here just off the photograph, and you have the same spatial
11
relationship between the curve line and the face of the
•
12
building that you have with the Fort Collins High School
13
site.
14
Getting back to that beautiful building that's
15
Fort Collins High, as I mentioned, designed and constructed
16
around 1924. A wonderful neoclassical building. It is a
17
local landmark. It certainly contributes a lot
18
architecturally to this town as well as the whole historical
19
aspect, operating as a high school for so many decades. And
20
there's an analysis of the architectural character of this
21
building, the staff report. I think there are others that
22
will be speaking this evening about the historical
23
significance of this building.
24
And this is the pedestrian underpass under
25
College Avenue and the beautiful park right across the
n
1 street.
2 This is the 1953 addition that respected the
3 setback line of the original building, picked up on a lot
4 of, I think, what we've seen with the latest proposal, that
5 the architect back at that time did pick up on some of the
6 architectural elements of the original building without
7 exactly mimicking it, reflecting it in the brick treatment
8 and window placement.
9 This is also a local landmark element of that
10 building; and this is another shot of it showing the green
11 area in front, and from another angle, and the architect's
12 proposing this design will be, I think, coming forward with
13 either some graphics here that I think show the addition
14 quite well, how it would be projecting here in front of this
15 green area that's presently in front of the '53 addition.
16 The track in the back of the site would not be
17 modified in any way.
18 This is the Pitkin frontage. As I mentioned, the
19 site plan indicates that there would be -- creating some
20 additional parking on this frontage, as well as upgrading
21 the landscape. I did fail to mention in the staff report
22 that there is no landscaping proposed between the sidewalk
23 and the parking area. And we have talked to CSU since the
24 time of the application came in, and they're quite willing
25 to make that change and provide a landscape screen to soften
i
1
the impact of the parked cars here along Pitkin Street. And
2
you would have a full complement of interior landscaping of
3
the parking lot, which we think is a very positive element.
4
Just some graphics that the applicant had
5
submitted, and we took a look at these at our work session.
6
I think also in our packet is in more tabular form an
7
analysis of each one of these and which types of draw -backs
8
each one of these proposals has, different options for
9
fronting the addition or siting it on the property. But
10
essentially, one thing that was looked at was putting the
11
performance hall largely to the east and putting a dance
•
12
addition here immediately behind the building.
13
And then the other -- another being immediately
14
to the north of the cerformance hall.
15
And then the last one, which is essentially what
16
you see before you, is the performance hall on the west
17
side, towards Remington Street.
18
The staff certainly has spent a lot of time
19
looking at this issue as well as the Board. And we
20
certainly understand the position that the University is in.
21
We understand the programmatic and financial constraints
22
that the University is under. But we still respectfully
23
disagree that the design option that was chosen was the
24
appropriate one. And essentially, based on the three
25
criteria, I wanted to go through our recommendation with
10
1 you.
2 The first being that relative to character, or,
3 excuse me, relative to location, that the location is
4 incompatible with historic spatial relationship of the
5 existing building, the park, the front lawn, streetscape
6 context, and the site and neighborhood.
7 On the second issue, that the character of the
8 addition is compatible with the historical building facade
9 and materials found on the existing building within the
10 immediate neighborhood.
11 And then lastly, that the extent of the addition
12 with regard to the proposed building square footage and
13 operational characteristics is compatible with the site and
14 neighborhood.
15 The staff report did indicate that we received a
16 traffic study. And we find that the impacts are nominal,
17 based on traffic generation within the neighborhood and
18 existing conditions.
19 Also, with respect to storm water, Basil Hampden
20 from the storm water utility is here this evening, if you
21 have questions dealing with storm water staff over this last
22 week, in that we did get a very brief summary of the
23 potential design to deal with storm water impacts with the
24 addition.
25 And it wasn't as complete as we typically get,
E
i
11
1 but the storm water staff is confident that the professional
2 designer that's been assigned to this project is well -versed
3 in the Fort Collins storm water regulations and that all the
4
options that they talked to them about are feasible. They
5
just haven't done the detailed analysis at this point, but
6
there's confidence by City staff that storm water
7
requirements can quite easily be met on the site, given the
8
open site area, particularly on the north side, east side,
9
of the site.
10
And with that, that's staff's recommendation, and
11
I'd certainly be willing to answer any questions you have.
•
12
MR. GAVALDON: Thank you, Cameron. Thank you
13
very much for an excellent presentation. If it's okay with
14
the Board, we want to move to the applicant's presentation?
15
MR. ECKMAN: Mr. Chairman, before we do that, I
16
just wanted to explain the operation of the statute just
17
briefly to the Board.
18
MR. GAVALDON: Oh, absolutely. Thank you.
19
MR. ECKMAN: It's Colorado Revised Statute
20
31-22-09, and I guess it's not quite like a recommendation
21
to the State Board of Agriculture, because this board makes
22
the final decision on this, subject to being overruled by
23
the State Board of Agriculture.
24
So, for example, if the project should be
25
approved by this Board, then it would not need to go to the
12
1 State Board of Agriculture for any further review or, as
2 understand it, the name of that board is changing sometime
3 very soon in the next couple of weeks.
4 But if you disapprove of this plan, then the
5 University must take the matter to the State Board of
6 Agriculture, and it can only be overturned by a two-thirds
7 vote of its entire membership.
8 So I guess in the event of a disapproval, it does
9 become somewhat like a recommendation, because they take
10 your information and they are required to vote on it.
11 MR. GAVALDON: Thank you, Paul. Jennifer?
12 MS. CARPENTER: Paul, could you tell us a little
13 bit about that procedure? Is it like an appeal to our City
14 Council or is it -- can new information be put in at the
15 State Board of Agriculture? Is there public input there?
16 MR. ECKMAN: I don't know. The statute is silent
17 on that. It just says, in the case of disapproval, it may
18 be overruled by the governing body of the University by a
19 vote of not less than two-thirds of their membership. So
20 how they conduct their meetings and whether they allow
21 public input or not, programs the applicant could tell you,
22 because I've frankly never been to one of their hearings.
23 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. Jennifer, you may want to
24 ask the applicant that question when it comes to us in time.
25 Great.
0
13
1
MR. TORGERSON: Paul, you mentioned that it would
2
go to the Board of Agriculture. That's not necessarily a
3
given if CSU chose to respect the decision made by the
4
Board. Isn't that true? It's not a given that it would
5
necessarily go to the Board of Agriculture.
6
MR. ECKMAN: No, that wouldn't be a given. They
7
could change the plan to comply with your -- they may need
8
to come back to this board for another look at the plan in
9
that event, because you wouldn't know for sure that they had
10
changed it until you've seen it again.
11
MR. TORGERSON: Right. Great.
12
MR. GAVALDON: And that would come as asking the
13
Board to rescind the previous vote. Is that correct? If it
14
came back to our Board with changes, we would have to
15
rescind the previous vote to hear it again
16
MR. ECKMAN: Sure, and that would be no problem.
17
You could do that.
18
MR. GAVALDON: Okay. Paul, with the applicant's
19
presentation, we offer them 30 minutes for them to present.
20
25, 30 minutes. You may ask them -- that's not a hard and
21
fast rule. We can extend if it's necessary, okay.
22
So at this time, I'd like to have a
23
representative of the applicant come up. Typically, we
24
offer 25 to 30 minutes. With that, I'll give you an
25
opportunity; is that adequate?
14
1 MR. CHASE: Yes, sir. That's fine.
2 MR. GAVALDON: 30, then? .
3 MR. CHASE: We can do it within 30. No problem
4 at all.
5 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. And then we'll have citizen
6 input, and then if there is -- our process usually allows us
7 a surrebuttal by the applicant. So if there's a need for
8 it, we'll weigh it and we'll go from there, okay?
9 MR. CHASE: Yes, sir.
10 MR. GAVALDON: All right. It's all yours. Thank
11 you very much.
12 MR. CHASE: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of
13 the Commission, my name is Brian Chase. I'm the director of
14 facilities for Colorado State -- are you hearing? It's
15 okay? It's okay. Thanks. I was at the work session that
16 we had over a month ago, and my concern there was that we
17 presented some information. There was a lot of issues that
18 you raised of concern -- no.
19 MR. GLOSS: Pardon me. I'm sorry, Brian. Can I
20 interrupt for a second?
21 MR. CHASE: Yes.
22 MR. GAVALDON: Because we're recording this, come
23 to the microphones, that -- the mike at the podium here.
24 That would be preferable. You can use that as well.
25 MR. CHASE: Okay. Great.
0
15
1
MR. GLOSS: Sorry.
2
MR. CHASE: And again, for the record, I'm Brian
3
Chase, director of facilities. When we had the work
4
session, there was a number of issues that the commission
5
members expressed that we tried to respond to.
6
The concern I have is that at that point,.. you
7
know, some of the discussion was like, some of this isn't
8
negotiable. We have problems. And what I wanted to do was,
9
what 1 felt was not done very well by the University, was
10
explain some of the issues that we have concerns.
11
We agree with two-thirds of what the staff has
.
12
said, which is, it is a good project. We've had over a
13
dozen events of various types, public meetings, Web site, a
14
lot of input from the community. People like the project.
15
We have a lot of positive responses to that. The last one,
16
Jan Carol was in the office, was someone who was involved in
17
the last event, being the 1952 reunion of all the graduates
18
from Fort Collins from previous years.
19
They liked the fact that we're working to
20
preserve the high school and do a good thing with it. We
21
have $7 million of donated funds to do the addition that
22
we're talking about. The legislature approved it. The
23
governor, who vetoed a number of other projects around the
24
state, specifically approved this project to allow us to go
.
25
ahead. Even some of the money that we had to do other
16
1 renovations in the building were not approved. But knowing
2 that there was that public support and private funds to go
3 ahead with it, it was approved by the governor.
4 What we're finding is, from the different events
5 that we've had, is that there is support for the project.
6 We agree with the staff when they say architecturally, we
7 tried to be responsive to you and we understand that the
8 main concern is the site plan.
9 And I just briefly would like to talk about a
10 couple of the issues -- can I move around and talk? Are you
11 hearing me okay?
12 MR. GAVALDON: You need to grab the microphone.
13 MR. CHASE: That's fine. I can do it from here.
14 MR. GAVALDON: You can take the microphone with
15 you.
16 MR. CHASE: Great. Get rid of that, then.
17 MR. GAVALDON: There you go.
18 MR. CHASE: The main issue -- three of the issues
19 came up. One was, talking about in order to preserve the
20 facade of the addition, one of the commission members had
21 asked about that. We did a sketch of looking at how that
22 could be accomplished. The trouble with that is if you did
23 do that, it would push the building further out. It also
24 changes some of the internal uses. It also has an impact on
25 the landscaping setback, and it's about 800,000 or more to
0
17
1
do that. We didn't feel that was an option that we could
2
look at seriously.
3
Staff mentioned about looking at other options.
4
You're primarily looking at a site plan. We have to worry
5
about how the internal operation of the building goes. When
6
you look at putting on something to the east, we're
7
concerned about the neighborhood as well as you are.
8
One of the concerns we had is by putting the
9
building, primarily the concert hall, facing to the north,
10
you would adversely impact the neighborhood. You would
11
bring more traffic to that northern end. It would have an
.
12
impact on the planning commission member who's not voting
13
today who realizes, you know, there's an impact. It also
14
takes away the opportunity to take advantage of the parking
15
on the campus, which allows you to come through the tunnel
16
into the site.
17
So part of that concern was not only the impact
16
on the neighborhood but also, if you look at the uses within
19
the building, how they were laid out, it's moving people
20
through the building, how the public areas relate to the
21
educational areas, the back of the house areas, moving sets
22
and that, those uses just don't work. If we had a perfect
23
world and unlimited budget, we could do it.
24
The one exception I take to staff, they say this
25
is our cost-effective method. It isn't the most
18
1 cost-effective way of doing it. It's the way that's
2 affordable within the budget that we have. It's also the
3 issue that was brought up by different people with concern
4 about the fly, the area where you would store the sets.
5 The original presentation we made had a fly that
6 competed with the cupola. And that was the big issue we
7 discussed with our user group about being -- you know,
8 trying to be compatible with the architecture of that site,
9 and we have eliminated the fly. Part of that was a budget
10 decision, but quite honestly, I feel that I can represent
11 it, was because of remarks of concern that were made by the
12 commission. That was a primary goal we had, is how do we
13 get this addition more in line and in keeping with what your
14 concerns were for that.
15 We realize there's a value judgment here and
16 appreciate the fact that you're looking at that building as
17 a historic and important part of the community. We view it
18 the same way, too. We feel that through the architecture we
19 do, the landscaping, the siting of it, we're preserving the
20 building, we're preserving the most important elements of
21 the building, and making this compatible with the community
22 and something that has a lot of community support.
23 We realize there is that issue, architectural
24 concern, and that's a -- a value judgment. We're asking you
25 when you consider the whole project that you would see clear
IE
19
1
to support it.
2
I'd like to have Brian, the architect, who's
3
presented some of the things before, to maybe discuss a few
4
more of the details of how we've also revised the
5
architecture since the work session.
6
MR. FAGERSTROM: My name is Brian Fagerstrom. I
7
represent Slater Paull Architects. I've been hired by the
8
University to develop what is called the performance hall
9
phase, which is the privately funded phase of the project
10
that Brian Chase had mentioned, as well as the renovation of
11
the 1924, the '50s gymnasium, and the '80s addition to the
12
south of the '24 building. That project is on hold from the
13
State. So what we're looking at primarily is, again, the
14
concert hall, performance hall, piece of the project.
15
The current exterior design, as you can see, the
16
fly space that used to be located here, which was 70 feet
17
tall, has been eliminated. The main volume of the concert
18
hall is 47 and a half feet tall. As Cameron had mentioned,
19
that is basically equal to the height of the existing 1924
20
parapet wall. In this drawing, that is represented here.
21
The height of the mansard roof on the ends of the
22
'24 building are 57 feet tall, so we're about 9 and a half
23
feet below, basically, the uppermost point on the ends of
24
the '24 building.
25
The cupola height is a hundred feet above -grade,
20
1 so again, we're -- that's the high point, and we want to
2 respect that, as well as making sure that the main volume of
3 the new proposed addition is basically equal with the
4 existing building.
5 Architecturally, in terms of the approach and the
6 features, basically, what we have here is a character
7 sketch, trying to give a little more of the tactile and feel
8 nature of what the building will actually be like.
9 Primarily, we're looking at brick masonry to match the
10 existing building of the '24 vintage, bringing in some
11 column elements, basically trying to capture some of the
12 beautiful feel of the existing entrance to the former Fort
13 Collins High School.
14 And that, as you can see here, in the new
15 addition, would be located primarily at the entrance as well
16 as on the west side that fronts Remington. So, again,
17 trying to get some compatibility, looking for a fit here
18 between the new and the existing.
19 The second element to the kind of facade design,
20 if you will, is a precast base, again, to try to pick up
21 some of the elements on the existing building. We're also
22 trying to give the elevation some relief, stepping back, if
23 you will, from the outermost plane, being the primary brick
24 face, and then we start to develop this phase of relief that
25 are identified by the columns.
0
21
1
And up top, we're looking at some metal
2
detailing, a little more lighter feel that, again, picks up
3
off the -- in the new building, would be located here, but
4
we're trying to pick up some of the elements of the '24
5
building, which are located on these mansard ends, kind of
6
bookends, if you will, on the north and the south of the
7
1924 building.
8
The other element on top here is a precast
9
cornice line, very similar in look and feel to what is
10
currently on the '24 building. A little bit of relief
11
there, provides a nice cap, a nice line, clean line there,
12
for the top of the building.
13
So that's really and architecturally the main
14
elements. Brian, unless you have anything else, we'll turn
15
it back to you for comments.
16
MR. GAVALDON: Okay. Thank you very much, Brian.
17
Thank you very much for sharing with us the changes you made
18
and the background information. It's been very informative.
19
Thank you.
20
Unless the board has some questions, we'll go to
21
public input.
22
Okay. We're going to move to public input at
23
this time. And is there any -- I'd just like to know, is
24
there an organized group out in the audience? Anyone
25
represent an organized group? Yes, ma'am. And what group
22
1 do you represent?
2
Pardon me? I'm
sorry. Come up and -- please.
3
MS.
McGEE: My
name is Alyson McGee, and I'm the
4
president of historic Fort
Collins development corporation.
5
MR.
GAVALDON:
Okay. And if you would like,
6
we'll give you
additional
time above the four minutes.
7
MS.
McGEE: I
just wanted to make a couple of --
8
MR.
GAVALDON:
Just let them get their hands up
9 who's in --
10 MS. McGEE: Oh.
11 MR. GAVALDON: Any other groups out in the
12 audience?
13 Okay. If it's okay with the audience, we'll go
14 with your representation. And then anyone else who would
15 like to speak, we invite you to share any comments. We have
16 two podiums here, and time is four minutes per person, and
17 we'll grant you additional time as you represent a group.
18 MS. McGEE: Okay. I just wanted to make a couple
19 of brief statements.
20 MR. GAVALDON: Thank you.
21 MS. McGEE: As the head of facilities stated, I
22 think that the public does support the concept of the
23 project, and especially the fact that it is a historic
24 school and it's going to be continued to be used for
25 educational purposes. And that's always a goal of historic
23
1 preservation, is that buildings can continue to be used in
2 their historic -- you know, in the same way as their
3 historic use.
4 But I think it's really important for people to
5 understand that putting a large addition on the front of a
6 historic building very clearly violates the Secretary of
7 Interior standards for historic preservation, and those are
8 standards that have been adopted nationwide for historic
9 buildings and how they should be treated.
10 The Secretary of the Interior standards, just to
11 paraphrase, states that new additions will not destroy
• 12 historic features and spatial relationships that
13 characterize the property.
14 Putting an addition in front of that post -World
15 War II gymnasium addition clearly destroys those historic
16 features. And that gymnasium, although it's in the part of
17 the original -- or has been added to the original building,
18 has acquired a significance of its own, not only because of
19 its age, but because of the fact that it was the site of so
20 many important events.for people who went to that -- that
21 high school over the years.
22 Another important point is that that entire
23 building, the gymnasium addition and the original building,
24 were locally landmarked. It was locally landmarked when CSU
25 acquired that property.
11
29
1 So I feel, in a sense, and I think a lot of
2 people in the preservation community feel, that the
3 University was acquiring that landmark designation when they
4 acquired the building. And that building was designated
5 that way in order to protect it.
6 And I think that the University owes it to the
7 City and the citizens of Fort Collins to respect that
8 designation and, in so doing, follow the Secretary of
9 Interior standards.
10 Thank you.
11 MR. GAVALDON: Thank you very much. We sure
12 appreciate it.
13 Would anyone else like to come up and speak to
19 the board? Please come on down. You don't have to raise
15 your hand. Feel free to step on up. We have a second
16 microphone for those who would be interested. Thank you.
17 MS. ORR: Hi. My name is Janet Orr. I'm an
18 architectural historian. I teach architectural history at
19 CSU, and I've been involved in preservation in various
20 aspects for about 20years now.
21 And I would like to say that overall, I very
22 much, I very heartily support the idea of the center for the
23 arts going into the old Fort Collins High School. But I do
29 have grave considerations about the addition to the front,
25 and I would request that the Planning and Zoning Board deny
• 0
0
25
1
or withhold your approval or not recommend to the State
2
Board of Agriculture the addition onto the front that's
3
proposed for a couple of reasons.
4
First of all, to restate what Alyson McGee has
5
already said that, this addition to the front of the
6
building violates a basic fundamental principle of historic
7
preservation and that is that additions to historical
8
buildings should not detract from the historic building
9
itself. And as you can tell, any kind of a monolithic
10
structure on the front of this building is going to obscure
11
and detract from the '24 original building built in 1924.
12
So I think in no way should we allow this -- this
13
magnificent building, which is such an important landmark
14
for Fort Collins, to be diminished by an addition onto the
15
front of it. So that's my first reason.
16
My second reason for making this request is that
17
this addition is going to destroy that 1953 addition to the
18
original building. And that addition, in itself, is
19
historic and unique in its own right, separate from even the
20
1924. In other words, it is not just an ancillary feature
21
that can readily be worked around and destroyed. It's
22
historic in its own right, architecturally.
23
First of all, it's on the national register, so
24
it's been recognized for its significance. So following any
25
kind of preservation guidelines, it -- its historic fabric
0
I should not be destroyed.
2 And I've heard comments that the building is
3 plain, some people have called it ugly and they say it's
4 expendable. But in my view as an architectural historian, I
5 think the '53 addition is a really great example of a
6 modernist interpretation of classicism that very nicely
7 implements the original neoclassicism of the 1924 building.
8 And so I think it's really important, then, that the current
9 addition take its lead from the '53 addition and be
10 subordinate and respectful to the original 1924.
11 Classicism.
12 The other thing is that that 1953 addition is, in
13 itself, a perfect, great example, a high -style example, of a
14 type of trend in modernism after World War II called new
15 formalism, where they returned to classic ideas of symmetry
16 and interpreted them in a modernist sense. And I don't
17 think we should lose that part of our history as well,
18 because after all, it's now historic. And in addition to
19 that, our -- we don't want to lose our '50s-built
20 environment as well.
21 So lastly, my last point is that right now, Fort
22 Collins and the rest of the Front Range has been undergoing
23 a time of really rampant growth, and I think when that
24 happens, our built landscape undergoes tremendous change,
25 and we are in danger of losing our own unique sense of
U
27
1
place. And the old Fort Collins High is crucial to
2
understanding the unique character in history in Fort
3
Collins, so I think it's absolutely crucial that we don't
4
diminish our sense of place by fundamentally transforming
5
the exterior of Fort Collins High with a big addition to the
6
front. Thanks.
7
MR. GAVALDON: Thank you very much. Sir?
8
MR. OLSEN: Good evening. My name is Ralph
9
Olsen. I'm a resident of Old Town. Over the years, I've
10
restored three old houses downtown. I presently live in a
11
designated property which carries with it some certain
12
responsibilities. If I, as a citizen, want to make a change
13
on the facade to my building, I pass through a review
14
process. The review process is intended to ensure the
15
architectural integrity, the historic fabric, of the
16
neighborhood I live in. I endorse that wholeheartedly.
17
I wanted to speak with you tonight, because I
18
wonder why the University wouldn't be held to the same
19
standard, inasmuch as they're citizens and residents of this
20 community
21 We have a watch word in preservation effort that
22 we wouldn't want to do anything to the properties we're in
23 that couldn't be undone. There's a sense of stewardship
24 that comes along with temporarily owning a piece of
25 property. Nothing's forever.
0
28
1 An addition like this, with a $7 million
2 investment, should be the very best, shouldn't be a
3 make -do -with -the -budget -that -we -have -now proposal. If there
4 aren't sufficient funds, wait. Do it right the first time.
5 Undoing it is a very difficult proposal, and the project
6 configuration, I don't think, is in keeping with the rest of
7 that building. I can't make myself think it is. Thanks
8 very much.
9 MR. GAVALDON: Thanks. Appreciate it. Anyone
10 else, please come to down. We have two -- two microphones.
11 MR. FRICK: Thank you. I'm Bud Frick. I'm a
12 member of the Landmark Preservation Commission and also a
13 citizen of Fort Collins.
14 First of all, I have to -- I had to get up here
15 soon, because otherwise, I'm going to say ditto to everybody
16 who was up here before, so ditto to Alyson, Janet, and
17 Ralph
18 I noticed that the applicants didn't bring a
19 model. The last time we had a public meeting, there was a
20 model, and they didn't have part of it glued down, and we
21 were able to move the addition around to a more suitable
22 location. And I noticed it's not here tonight.
23 I'm curious -- it looks like on the drawings that
24 the corners line of the addition is actually higher than the
25 corners line of the original 1924 building, but I don't have
0
29
1
a scale, so I can't tell. It just visually looks that Nay,
2
so that was one question.
3
Like everybody else said, what happened to our
4
landmark ordinance? We designated the structure. We did
5
not designate -- or not designate the 1953 addition. We did
6
designate that. So why all of a sudden can someone come
7
along who has what they think is a higher and better purpose
8
and obliterate it, say it's not worth it, and do all sorts
9
of warm fuzzy material things and the fenestration as
10
related to the azimuth of the original relationship of the
11
solar angle of the 1953 sun goddess of the performing arts
12
center.
13
You know, it's -- materials, everything, all the
14
articulation, the style, the spacing, all the proportions,
15
are all great. Just take the thing and move it around to
16
the north side of the existing gym.
17
If fund-raising is a problem, they've done a good
18
job of fund-raising and they say they have a budget
19
constraint. Why don't they go out and do some more
20
fund-raising and make up the difference?
21
And the last thing -- or two last things. At a
22
presentation that was at the Landmark Preservation
23
Commission, there was a lot of mention about stopping the
24
train. In other words, putting this building in front of
25
the '53 addition to stop the train, the '24 building, the
0
30
1 '53 building, going on down the street. And also because it
2 related to the parking way across the street.
3 There wasn't much mention about parking,
4 additional parking, north and east of the big, current
5 building. So now all of a sudden, I see a lot of additional
6 parking there. So what happened to the argument about all
7 the parking is going across the street?
8 My kids went to Fort Collins High, and they
9 parked as close as they could. And I would do the same if I
10 were going to a performing arts center. I wouldn't park
11 across the street, go under the viaduct and get to that
12 performing arts center. I'd find local street parking.
13 So we'd like to continue the train and have the
14 addition put on the north side. Thank you.
15 MR. GAVALDON: Thank you very much. Yes, sir?
16 Please?
17 MR. FEEGEE: Hi. Mark Feegee. I'm associate
18 professor of history at Colorado State University. I just
19 want to offer my support of everything that everyone has
20 said thus far, especially in terms of supporting the
21 Secretary of Interior standards; but I want to add something
22 to that, and I think that it's our moral and ethical
23 obligation, duty, to respect the integrity of our public
24 monuments, and I feel that the proposed addition does not do
25 that.
0
• 31
1 I agree with Janet Orr that we're living in a
2 time of rapid change. We're living in a time that we need
3 to reaffirm to ourselves who we are as a people. And I
4 think we have an obligation, therefore, to realize the
5 historic character of our public monuments. So thank you.
6 MR. GAVALDON: Thank you very much. Anyone else?
7 Please?
8
MS. MANSEY: Rita Mansey, 1400 Freedom Lane.
9
I'n 1976, the national government passed the
10
National Historic Preservation Act, and in the late 1970s, a
11
group of architects, urban planners, historians, met in
12
Washington to write the Secretary of Interior standards for
.
13
rehabilitation.
14
They realized they had a pretty daunting task
15
because there were a lot of different viewpoints that came
16
into this, but one of the things they wanted to do was to
17
allow the use of historic buildings for modern purposes.
18
Yet on the other hand, they wanted to protect the most
19
important historic features.
20
They realized that in order to do that, if you
21
were going to restore or rehabilitate a historic building,
22
that one of the major things you need to protect was the
23
primary facade of the building that the people would see.
24
Certainly, additions could be added to the back
25
of the building, to the side of the building, using
•
32
1 additions or anything that would keep clear what the
2 original building was.
3 Since that time, I started working for the State
4 of Wyoming in 1985 and worked for their state historic
5 preservation office, and for seven years, I reviewed all
6 projects at the State, Federal, and local level that could
7 have impact on the character of historic buildings.
8 During that time, I went to a lot of different
9 conferences where we discussed the Secretary of Interior
10 standards. We discussed problems like this. I must say
11 this in all of my discussions, though, I have not seen one
12 architect that -- at any of those conferences I went to that
13 would have said that this met the Secretary of Interior
14 standards.
15 First, you've got a complete intrusion on the
16 primary facade of that building. When you look at the
17 building, you don't think it's a colonial revival building
18 if you're looking at this modern structure based on the
19 front of it.
20 The purpose of the National Historic Preservation
21 Act was to preserve the character, the historic character,
22 of our community. This is a primary landmark. It shows the
23 historic character of Fort Collins. And I hope that you
24 will support the landmark's preservation ordinance and stand
25 for preserving that character. Thank you.
0
33
1
MR. GAVALDON: Thank you very much. Ma'am?
2
MS. DIX: Good evening. My name is Agnes Dix.
3
I'm a current member of the Landmarks Preservation
4
Commission. But I'm speaking tonight as a private citizen
5
and a 35-year resident of Fort Collins.
6
I have degrees in art and anthropology and taught
7
both at the University level. For 12 years, I was curator
. 8
of education at the Fort Collins Museum. Over the year, I
9
conducted many tours and programs on the architecture and
10
history of Fort Collins. I'm deeply committed to this city,
11
both its past and its future.
12
As part of my interest in architectural history,
13
I have been fortunate to take several of the many courses
14
the University offers in preservation. I'm especially sad.
15
to be here tonight because I considered CSU a strong
16
advocate for preservation in Fort Collins.
17
It's easy enough to advocate preservation. We
18
want to see the University implement those preservation
19
standards and -- and has its -- its -- the preservation
20
standards it has long advocated.
21
Old Fort Collins High School was designated a
22
historic landmark at the local, state, and national level.
23
Buildings with this designation are governed by standards
24
set by the Secretary of the Interior. There are 10
25
standards set forth by the Secretary of Interior for
0
34
1 rehabilitating -- for the rehabilitation of such buildings.
2 Even by the most generous interpretation of those standards,
3 the University's plan for the high school will violate six
4 of these standards.
5 Rather than read through them, I will bring to
6 your attention standard number 9, and I quote, in part: New
7 additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction
8 will not destroy historic material, features, and spatial
9 relationships that characterize the property, unquote.
10 The planned addition to the high school
11 overwhelms the original building. It diminishes rather than
12 enhances. It neither refers to nor respects the original
13 structure and fabric.
14 I'm certain that if this proposed plan is put
15 forth by a private developer, the University would be among
16 the first to oppose it. I know that CSU has the resources
17 and vision to create a plan that enhances both the community
18 and the University and respects its history.
19 It's incumbent on us to insist that the
20 University meet their responsibilities and this challenge.
21 I strongly urge the University to reevaluate and redesign
22 these plans so they are in compliance with the spirit and
23 letter of the Secretary's standards. It would be a tragedy
24 for the City of Fort Collins to lose this treasure at the
25 hands of the University. Thank you.
0
35
1
MR. GAVALDON: Thank you very much.
2
Do we have any others who would like to come on
3
down? Please come on down.
4
MS. WATROUS: Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
5
My name is Myrne Watrous. I'm a past president of the Fort
6
Collins historical society and a 50-plus year alumna of old
7
Fort Collins High School. I'm also a member of the City of
8
Fort Collins Landmark Commission. I'm speaking here tonight
9
as a private citizen.
10
In 1994, the then -owner of the property at 1400
11
Remington was bought by Poudre R-1 School District, owned it
12
then, for local landmark designation. And this designation
13
was granted by the LPC, unanimously, at a public hearing
14
July 26th, 1994.
15
On November 14, 2001, the current owner of old
16
Fort Collins High School, Colorado State University, came to
17
the LPC for a conceptual schematic of this proposed concert
18
hall addition; and as according to Fort Collins code, the
19
LPC must review and approve any proposed exterior changes to
20
local landmarks before a building permit can be issued. And
21
of course, we do use the Secretary of Interior standards.
22
And as Agnes Dix said, this particular project
23
violates six of the ten applicable standards. Indeed, one
24
of the building's architects suggested that the commission
25
members violate those standards in making their decision.
0
36
1 If the members had violated those standards, as well as City
2 code, this site would lose its historic designation, and I
3 suspect the commission members would have been in a world of
4 trouble.
5 Lacking approval, it was suggested that '
6 facilities and the architects rethink the placement of the
7 concert hall, perhaps placing it to the north or to the east
8 of the historic building and return to the LPC at a later
9 date for approval. They have not done so.
10 The design they're presenting tonight is not the
11 same design presented to the LPC. In fact, it seems to have
12 enlarged a bit from apparently 25,000 feet to 28,000 feet.
13 The materials to be used are still vague and the placement
14 is the same.
15 In a conversation with Mr. Chase on June 7th, I
16 understood that certain unnamed wealthy benefactors are
17 donating funds for this project. Now, philanthropy for the
18 arts is most certainly to be encouraged. However, in this
19 country, we live under a system of laws designed to apply to
20 all alike, whether rich or poor.
21 CSU apparently plans to take advantage of a
22 loophole in the state statute exempting them from local
23 ordinances. I'm sure this board, like the LPC, endeavors to
24 treat all applicants in a fair and even-handed manner. Not
25 to do so invites public scandal.
•
37
1
Fort Collins has a few icons. The first provided
2
by Mother Nature is Horsetooth Rock. And the second being
3
provided by our pioneer ancestors is probably the Linden
4
Hotel building, the linchpin of the Old Town business
5
district. Surely the historic vista provided by old Fort
6
Collins High School for four generations of Fort Collins
7
citizens would be another.
8
Just last fall, this board denied a request by
9
the City to place a homeless shelter at the rear of the old
10
power plant on North College Avenue on the grounds that it
11
would destroy the historic fabric of the site. That
12
decision was upheld on appeal by City Council.
•
13
50 ago, old Fort Collins High School
years and
14
the old power plant were the bookends of this city. Before
15
the construction of I-25, one drove to Denver on what is now
16
Highway 287; and as you returned to Fort Collins, you
17
crossed Prospect Road, just a narrow dirt road at that time.
18
But when you saw the gleaming pillars and the soaring tower
19
of old Fort Collins High School, you knew you were home.
20
Please don't allow the local, state, and national
21
designation of this historic site to be put in jeopardy by
22
this project. Please recommend against this project as
23
presented.
24
Thank you.
25
MR. GAVALDON: Thank you very much. Yes, ma'am.
40
W
1 MS. LEFLEITNER: Thank you. Elizabeth
2 Lefleitner. I own two properties in the neighborhood, and
3 I'm also an alumnus of Fort Collins High School. And I'm
4 delighted to see that it looks like it's going to be
5 preserved and put to such good use as a performance
6 facility. I'm really pleased about that.
7 But I echo everything I'd heard this evening,
8 that I think it would be a shame to not be consistent with
9 the historic preservation of the building. And so I also
10 oppose the current proposal. Thank you.
11 MR. GAVALDON: Thank you.
12 MR. LANDERS: Hi. My name is Martin Landers.
13 I'm a resident of the neighborhood. I live at 1418 Whedbee
14 Street. And I agree with almost all of the comments I've
15 heard here tonight as well. This neighborhood is an
16 incredibly beautiful neighborhood. That structure is an
17 icon of the neighborhood. The historic character of it is
18 incredibly important to this -- even the intent of the
19 neighborhood conservation zoning district.
20 And it would seem to me to be a great shame,
21 especially when there's two other excellent options, option
22 B and option C, to put forward what I consider to be a
23 complete, unacceptable, architectural option.
24 I know that as a planning commission, you have a
25 very difficult task in front of you. You have to make the
I decisions all the time that will affect this community for a
2 great while.
3 In this particular case, this decision may be
4 seen as one of your greatest legacies, in fact. This
5 particular building and .its addition will be there because
6 it's such a prominent part of this community, and people
7 will be driving by 20 years from now and saying, "Why did
8 they put that addition on the front end of the building?"
9 So I, again, would like to support the comments
10 that were made by staff, by the rest of the audience
11 tonight, and urge you to make a recommendation of, if not
12 denial, at least a recommendation for either option B or C
13 to the applicant for revising this plan. Thank you.
14 MR. GAVALDON: Do we have anyone else who would
15 like to come down and speak to the board about the pending
16 advisory review?
17 Okay. Seeing none, I'll close public input. At
18 the discretion of the board, we'll go ahead and offer the
19 applicant a five-minute surrebuttal. Mr. Chase? Would you
20 like to come up and offer a rebuttal?
21 MR. CHASE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't
22 think it's really a rebuttal. I think there are issues that
23 I'd just like to mention.
24 One is that this is not on the national register.
25 That's really not the issue. I want to clarify that for
0
9M
40
1 people that might be listening and thinking we're violating
2 those interior standards that we're obligated to go with.
3 I think the issue we're looking at is, as a
4 University and as someone who is director of facilities, I
5 do take serious the idea that we are custodian of certain
6 historic structures on the campus.
7 When we look at this building, we are not looking
8 at just strictly a historic preservation issue. We are
9 looking at a commitment the University has made to preserve
10 this structure in the community, make it a living, important
11 part of the community, preserve the impact it might have to
12 the neighborhood if we were to consider some of the other
13 options that people are advocating.
14 We think that this is a good plan. I think, you
15 know, the person who spoke last here, what are people going
16 to think 20 years from now? And I'd like to say the same
17 thing. What will it be viewed as in 20 years? If we do
18 this addition the way we want, if we do the architecture,
19 which even your own staff agrees is sensitive to the design
20 of the building, we think it is a good, adaptive reuse of
21 the facility.
22 In a pure world, with unlimited budgets, we could
23 redesign things and meet everyone's expectations. In the
24 real world we're dealing with, I have competing obligations,
25 uses, and opportunities here.
0
41
1 What I'm asking you to do this evening is, while
2 I agree with a lot of the things that have been said, I
3 think the importance of historic preservation has been
4 important, we're looking at a variety of other,priorities
5 and other things as well as looking at the importance of
6 historic preservation.
7 We really feel the plan we've presented preserves
8 not only the essential historic nature of the building; it
9 also enhances it in terms of adds to the building; and yes,
10 there's a compromise there in terms of what some people
11 would like to do, in terms of preserving the building
12 exactly the way it is. And that is not what we're about and
• 13 that's not what we're presenting to you this evening.
14 We are proposing a project that we think is
15 worthy for your consideration, and we're asking for your
16 approval. Thank you.
17 MR. GAVALDON: Thank you, Mr. Chase. Thank you
18 very much. We're going to take a ten-minute break and then
19 come back with some questions and our decision after we've
20 had our questions. So we'll take a 10-minute break.
21 (Recess.)
22 MR. GAVALDON: Good evening, and welcome back.
23 We were working with the University Center for the Arts site
24 plan advisory review, and we went through a presentation and
25 public input. And we will now proceed on the Board
•
42
1 questions of applicant and staff.
2 We jotted down some notes, and I'm sure we'll
3 probably capture as many of the citizens' inputs or
4 questions that were brought up as much as we can.
5 So Board members, do you want to start off with
6 some questions? Mikal?
7 MR. TORGERSON: Brian, if you could come up --
8 Brian Chase, I'm sorry. Got two Brians here.
9 Brian, in the two earlier work sessions that you
10 folks came to, you had mentioned that -- we've got a lot
11 more architectural detail -- there's a mosquito here --
12 we've got a lot more architectural detail now than we had in
13 those work sessions, but at the time, you were indicating
14 that the reason you didn't necessarily have all that detail
15 is that you were really looking for input as it relates to
16 the location. And you were even talking about possibly
17 separating the approval of location, extent and character,
18 into separate approval processes.
19 Are you still interested in doing that?
20 MR. CHASE: I -- you know, I don't remember
21 saying that exactly that way. What I can tell you is what I
22 told Cameron, is regardless of your vote tonight, we're
23 committed to make this site work well. And we will work
24 with you and the staff when we continue with the design,
25 assuming that you approve it or the State Board of ours
0 •
• 43
1 approves it, and we have a project that we intend to have in
2 the community for the next 50 years. We expect that it will
3 be built, approved, and in a way that it will become part of
4 the community. So we have no desire to make you think that
5 whatever your action is tonight, we are not going to work
6 with you and your staff to get the best project possible.
7 MR. TORGERSON: That wasn't why I was asking.
8
MR. CHASE:
Okay.
9
MR. TORGERSON:
I guess
the fact that you're
10
saying you're going to
continue to
work on the design is the
11
root of my question.
It doesn't seem like we have real
12
architecture here that
we can make
a decision about
13
character on.
14 MR. CHASE: Okay. And Mr. Chairman, to respond
15 to that is, we have -- I don't know that I would say we
16 tried to separate the site from the design part as much as
17 we're moving along with that and we wanted to have a process
18 where we would say, how can we be responsive. We will
19 develop it in more detail. We tried to be responsive to the
20 comments we heard in the last work session, and we'll flesh
21 that out as best as we can as we continue now and work with
22 you on that. Does that help?
23 MR. TORGERSON: Perhaps. Out of curiosity, why
24 wouldn't you have developed the architecture more before you
25 brought it in for approval?
0
44
1 MR. CHASE: I can't speak for my predecessors and
2 what the reason for that is. Everything takes on a schedule
3 of its own, and they have been working on it. Most of -- I
4 can tell you a big part of it is the internal design of the
5 building has been the primary concern, about how we come up
6 with a project that is financially feasible and meets the
7 user needs. A lot of the work sessions we've been having
8 with users of the building, music, theater departments, so
9 on, is how do we make the internal design of the building
10 work.
11 And it's the old issue of form follows function.
12 We had to have something that functionally works before we
13 could work on the form. And I think, basically, we've put
14 more effort into the design of the exterior after the last
15 work session.
16 MR. TORGERSON: That's apparent. Okay. Well, I
17 guess that answers my question. My concern is that -- so is
18 your application today for approval of location, extent, and
19 character? Or is it for location and extent?
20 MR. CHASE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to refer back
21 to the staff. I think we're asking for approval of the
22 project; and subject to approval, we would continue to work
23 with staff on the details, if there are some issues of
24 concern that you point out that you would like reviewed,
25 Just as when Cameron and I talked this afternoon, it was not
1]
45
1 our intent to exclude parking and landscaping along the
2 north edge of the site, and we would comply with the City
3 regulations for that type of thing. So we'll continue to
4 work with you, if that answers your question. We are
5
asking --
6
MR. TORGERSON: Okay. I guess we're just more
7
accustomed to seeing applications with fully -developed site
8
plans and fully -developed engineering and fully -developed
9
architecture, and for us to make a judgment about location,
10
character, and extent. I think we're able to make a
11
judgment relative to location today, but not character.
12
MR. CHASE: And I appreciate what you're saying.
13
And I think, you know, we do have the traffic study that
14
shows that there is not going to be a major impact, much
15
less than the high school ever did, and is something you can
16
work with, as well as we will meet the City standards for
17
the drainage issues and retention of the water on the site
18
and that. And I think if the primary concern you've got is
19
architectural design issues, I can give your our assurances,
20
again, we will work with staff on those issues. We want the
21
building to be as nice as possible. It's always been our
22
goal.
23
MR. TORGERSON: Okay. Thank you.
24
MR. GAVALDON: Brian, could you stay up here,
25
please. Some of the folks from Landmark Preservation,
0
46
1 Historic Fort Collins, have said this is on a local, state,
2 and national register, and then we heard from you that it is
3 not. Can you help me, help us understand, is it really or
4 is it not really, and do we have documentation that says the
5 school is on all.three registers?
6 MR. CHASE: Again, I have to -- being new to this
7 process now, I'd prefer to refer to your staff, who I'm sure
8 probably knows better than I do.
9 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. Let me ask the Historic
10 Landmark Preservation and maybe can have you back up for
11 more questions, sir.
12 Someone from Landmark or Historic Fort Collins
13 can come up and talk to us about the national historic
14 register.
15 Thank you, Brian, very much.
16 MS. TUNNER: I'm Carol Tunner. I'm City staff to
17 the Landmark Preservation Commission and in charge of the
18 design review to designated properties.
19 Fort Collins High School was placed on the
20 national register as a contributing building in 19 -- I
21 believe 1977. It's listed on the register. I gave
22 Mr. Gloss a copy of that listing with national register on
23 the top page. It is in the book -- in the national register
24 book, in Washington, is a listing. I don't remember what
25 number it was on the list, but it has a number, and it's --
0
47
1 that puts it as a contributing building in the Laurel school
2 national register district.
3 In 1994, there was a state register passed, I
4 believe, that said if you're on the national register,
5 you're on the state register, too, and of course, it was
6 locally landmarked in 1994, which is an even stronger
7 designation, because it controls any changes to the exterior
8 of the building. It's our local landmark -- our local
9 designation set up by the people of Fort Collins to protect
10 their landmarks.
11 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. So this refutes CSU's claim
12 that it is not -- it is actually on the listing.
13 MS. TUNNER: Yes.
14 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. I just wanted to get that
15 clear, because then we're listening to the conversation and
16 hearing yes and no, but now --
17 MS. TUNNER: Yes, that is a confusion. In
18 addition, I've spoken with Dale Heckendorn, who is the state
19 and national registered coordinator for the Colorado
20 Historical Society, and I asked him about, could we
21 individually place the building on the national register and
22 the state register, and he said, "Well, that's not really
23 necessary because it's already contributing to the register
24 districts." He said, "You could if you want, but we'd have
25 to get the owner's permission to do that."
0
M
1 On the other hand, we could determine if it's
2 eligible for the national register and state register
3 individually, and he said, "I'd be very happy to entertain
4 that if you'd like to do that." He said, "It would be very
5 eligible to be eligible."
6 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. But it's on the listing for
7 the district. Is that the -- it's a list -- it's on a list
8 that is part of the district?
9 MS. TUNNER: Yes. It's a contributing building
10 in the national and state register districts.
11 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. Thank you very, very much
12 for that clarification.
13 Okay. Any other board questions? Member
14 questions?
15 Okay. If I can continue on. Cameron, we didn't
16 get the model tonight. Any reason why we didn't see the
17 model? It was brought up by a citizen, and I believe we
18 requested it last week.
19 MR. GLOSS: That's up to the applicant.
20 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. Can someone from the
21 applicant let us know why we didn't have a model here
22 tonight? That was a nice model that you had at work
23 session.
24 MR. CHASE: Mr. Chairman, quite honestly, we
25 didn't bring it because that really wasn't part of the
.
49
1
discussion of -- we had about what we'd present to convince
2
you. I mean, I think the issue we were concerned about were
3
showing the architectural details and not the model. I
4
don't think we were trying to hide anything. You .know,
5
someone earlier commented, well, why didn't they bring the
6
model, that we could move it around.
7
I mean, I made a point of showing, there are a
8
variety of ways you could design this building and move
9
things around. We didn't have the physical model, but we
10
certainly aren't trying to disguise or hide anything. We're
11
showing the best design. So it just was what -- we didn't
12
think it was necessary to bring it, and I didn't get any
•
13
requests to bring it, so I'm sorry.
14
MR. GAVALDON: Okay. Thank you. We'll just do
15
what we can with the drawings. Thank you.
16
Go ahead.
17
MR. TORGERSON: Is Basil around?
18
MR. GAVALDON: Is Basil around?
19
MR. GLOSS: It's my understanding that he would
20 be here.
21 MR. TORGERSON: We'll get him back.
22 MR. GLOSS: Probably.
23 MR. TORGERSON: Okay. Maybe, to express my
24 thought here, is it seems like maybe we could even make a
25 real judgment about extent when there are major questions
0
Me
1 about whether or not the storm drainage is resolved. It
2 seems like -- is he -- oh, great.
3 MR. GAVALDON: Finally, Brian, and CSU staff, I'd
4 like to thank you for the drawings and detail you've
5 provided, they've been helpful, and the changes made. We
6 appreciate you updating us.
7 Basil, I believe you have some questions from
8 Mikal.
9 MR. TORGERSON: Hi, Basil.
10 MR. HERMAN: Hello. My name is Basil Herman.
11 I'm with the City of Fort Collins storm water utility.
12 MR. TORGERSON: The question I had is, we heard
13 earlier that there were issues about the storm water, that
14 there were probably ways to resolve them, but they hadn't
15 been resolved? And it sort of relates to our criteria and
16 location and extent and character. I'm wondering if it's
17 appropriate for us to make a decision about extent when
18 extent really relates to, you know, this enormous new
19 parking lot and these additional impervious areas. Are you
20 comfortable --
21 MR. HERMAN: Yeah, I can answer. The applicant
22 has not prepared a full drainage report. What they showed
23 us is a utility plan that shows us a potential location for
24 detention and a potential outfall. We have a storm drainage
25 system -- I don't know if you have a map up that is on the
i
51
1
northeast corner of the site, that they proposed to
2
discharge into it. And that system eventually drains into
3
Spring Creek.
4
That system is built -- I guess -- so, anyway,
5
this is the intersection where they're proposing to drain
6
their site. They're proposing to put in a detention in this
7
location, and they haven't really sized it. They showed it
8
on a conceptual basis on a plan, saying that they could put
9
detention in here, drain the area, all the additional
10
impervious area drainage to the back here, and then our
11
system, as I mentioned, is in this area, on the -- at this
12
intersection, and then that goes down, generally, to the
13
south and drains into Spring Creek.
14
So their proposal is to place a detention pond
15
there. As I mentioned, it's just a conceptual plan, and so
16
it was not reviewed fully because it was kind of saying
17
that, yeah, it can work, we can make it work, and this is
18
where we plan on -- how we plan on doing it, but we don't
19
have the full design plans for it.
20
MR. TORGERSON: So would you be comfortable
21
making a recommendation in terms of extent? They're
22
proposing a certain amount of new impervious areas. Would
23
you be comfortable in making a recommendation whether or not
24
that extent can be dealt with according to our codes?
25
MR. HERMAN: With the amount of open space they
0
52
1 have, I'm pretty confident they can get enough detention.
2 The only question is, when they drain it into our system
3 here, there's a water line or something in the way, like
4 potentially, there's a conflict. But, you know, I'm pretty
5 sure those can be worked out.
6 So as far as I'm concerned, I think we can safely
7 say that they can be dealt with but we don't have enough
8 detail to say, you know, they are dealt with at this point.
9 But I'm pretty confident with the room they have, they might
10 have to move some of this track, which, you know, may affect
11 the character to put the water here, but you know, they
12 resod things. It can be done.
13 MR. TORGERSON: Okay. Thanks.
14 MR. HERMAN: Does that answer your question?
15 MR. TORGERSON: Yes. Thank you.
16 MR. GAVALOON: Thank you, Basil. Any other
17 questions? Are we getting chose on a motion with the
18 advisory? Or make any comments before the motion?
19 MR. TORGERSON: Cameron, when was application
20 made?
21 MR. GLOSS: It was July 19th, so we have a fair
22 amount of time if the Board wishes to delay the action.
23 It's 60 days from the day of formal submittal.
24 MR. TORGERSON: Okay. Brian, you wanted to add
25 something to that?
E
0
0
U
53
1 MR. CHASE: My concern is, I would like to see
2 you vote this evening. We've asked for approval. I think
3 the issues you've raised about different things that we
4 address, that we guarantee we will meet,the storm drainage
5 requirements of the City. If there are specific things
6 involved in architectural detail that you wish us to provide
7 you as we develop the site, we're more than willing to work
8 with the staff to do it. We want this to be a good
9 project.
10 But we'd like a vote this evening. We'd like to
11 know, do you or do you not approve the project? And
12 hopefully, you would approve, maybe subject to some
13 conditions of coming back for design control, which we're
14 willing to do, but we'd like to see you vote this evening
15 and not do a continuance.
16 MR. TORGERSON: It does seem -- I'm certain that
17 a lot of developers in the private sector would like to do
18 the same thing, get approval and assure staff that they'd
19 work with them and make something nice. It's a bit
20 unorthodox to come with very preliminary information,
21 frankly, and expect us to make decisions based on that. And
22 I guess that's why I'm asking this, because I don't think --
23 aside from location, I don't think I'm able to even make an
24 intelligent decision as to whether or not this is compatible
25 in terms of character and extent.
54
1 MR. CHASE: Okay. Yes, sir. Thank you.
2 MR. GAVALDON: Thank you. Okay. Cameron and
3 Paul, we've got an interesting -- an interesting approach to
4 this. If the application was July 19, 60 days, roughly,
5 would be September 19th.
6 MR. GLOSS: We have a September 5th hearing.
7 Also one on August 15th.
8 MR. GAVALDON: August 15th or September 5th?
9 - MR. GLOSS: Correct.
10 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. I happen to agree with
11 Mikal on a number of points. If a private sector brought
12 something like this, I couldn't make a decision to support
13 it. In fact, the private sector wouldn't even make it to
14 the docket unless he was ready to go with something that had
15 some substance.
16 For example, this district brought in the high
17 school, elementary school. They were rather complete
18 projects that we have seen, and we were able to give a
19 recommendation to that, looking at our partners in the
20 County, too, as your partners.
21 I would be open to a continuance until we see
22 something, until September 5th, of substance that can help
23 us on location, character, and extent. Just my preliminary
24 thoughts.
25 Any other thoughts or any other comments or
0
55
1
questions? Go ahead.
2
MR. TORGERSON: I think I'm able to make a
3
decision tonight on location. I would support moving
4
character and probably even extent to the September 5th
5
docket. But we'd have to make a decision then, because lack
6
of decision is interpreted as approval, and certainly not
7
ready to approve those two items.
8
MR. GAVALDON: Jennifer?
9
MS. CARPENTER: I'm really comfortable with
10
location as well. As far as the rest of it goes, the
11
extent, I -- we really don't have that information.
12
Character, I guess I waiver a little bit more on, because I
13
think that the location of it affects the character so much
14
that I think that has -- kind of takes care of it. But if
15
other board members are not comfortable with character at
16
this point, I would support voting for location, or doing a
17
motion on location, and having that be the only thing that
18
we decide tonight, and in moving the rest.
19
MR. GAVALDON: Let me ask Paul a process
20
question. Paul, can we split up the three, the criteria,
21
and vote on particular items and defer the other items by
22
continuing?
23
MR. ECKMAN: Well, I want to caution you that you
24
must vote on this within 60 days or it will deemed to be
25
approval.
0
ME
1 MR. GAVALDON: Right.
2 MR. ECKMAN: So you can't wait past that meeting
3 that we have scheduled for September 5th. If you feel like
4 you don't have enough information tonight to make an
5 informed decision, I think you can wait in the hope that you
6 will get more information. But that if, ultimately, you
7 don't get any more information on it, then you're, again,
8 cautioned to vote even without the information, so as to not
9 have it be deemed to be approval by not having acted in a
10 timely manner.
11 MR. GAVALDON: Jennifer?
12 MS. CARPENTER: If we do veto it tonight and
13 voted to disapprove, could they then come back with more
14 information, if part of the disapproval was based on the
15 fact that we don't have enough information? Could they then
16 come back and request to come back with more information?
17 MR. ECKMAN: Sure. They could ask you -- they
18 could come back and ask you to rescind your earlier decision
19 because they have more information to present to you that
20 would persuade you otherwise. But they have no obligation
21 to come back, because you have voted disapproval, in that
22 scenario, and they could then proceed on to the State Board
23 for its decision. But that's a two-thirds vote with the
24 State Board.
25 MR. GAVALDON: Mikal?
E
57
1 MR. TORGERSON: Brian or -- either Brian, I
2 guess. Do you feel like you would be willing or interested
3 in providing any additional information as it relates to the
4 actual architecture of the building?
5 MR. CHASE: Would be happy to do that. I have
6 not heard what exactly you specified. Most of the
7 conversation, my perception, is concern about the location.
8 And we are making a proposal that this is the location we
9 feel that we are presenting to you for your approval or
10 denial. And if there are other issues related to
11 architectural details, if -- we would be happy to provide
12 that subject to your approval of the project and we would
13 continue to work with you.
14 Our issue is not to be all or nothing. But it's
15 basically, if you're so inclined not to approve the
16 location, we'd like to know that tonight, rather than spend
17 a lot of additional time and effort and money in a design
16 that you are not inclined to approve. So I'd like some
19 direction in what you're looking to do.
20 MR. TORGERSON: Well, I guess as it relates to
21 character, your architect described these drawings as
22 character sketches, and we don't typically approve sketches.
23 We usually look at, is this architecture compatible and that
24 sort of thing.
25 MR. CHASE: Is there specific --
•
m
1 MR. TORGERSON: The question is, I guess, would
2 you be interested in developing the design any further
3 before September 5th, I guess?
4 MR. CHASE: We will.
5 MR. TORGERSON: Or would you just rather have us
6 vote on the entire project now?
7 MR. CHASE: That's your decision, sir. If you
8 ask, if you wish to continue it, we will provide additional
9 information if you're asking for it. You know, I asked for
10 a vote this evening because, again, my perception is, your
11 main concern and the staff's concern and what I've heard
12 articulated at the work session is the location issue.
13 MR. TORGERSON: Certainly.
14 MR. CHASE: I don't think we're going to have a
15 serious disagreement about architectural details. I think
16 the location is the issue. And if a majority of you feel
17 that you know what that decision is -- if you're really
18 telling me that you think that changing the architectural
19 facade in some way will influence your approval of the
20 location, I'm more than happy to work on doing that. Is
21 that what you're --
22 MR. TORGERSON: Would you be interested, then, in
23 containing tonight's vote to location? As the applicant,
24 that's your option, that we're suggesting earlier, that's
25 what they wanted to do.
59
1
MR. CHASE: You know, we're asking for approval
2
of the location of this site, and if there are issues about
3
refining the architecture, we're more than happy to work
4
with you on that. So we're asking for approval of the site.
5
MR. GAVALDON: Jennifer?
6
MS. CARPENTER: I'm going to make a comment, and
7
then I'm ready to make a motion. I think the applicant came
8
asking for location, character, and extent. I think we
9
should give him that. I don't feel that anything they can
10
do to this architecturally is going to change my vote,
11
because I do think the location affects the character.
12
So as far as the extent goes, I think Basil feels
13
that he can -- that they can work this out, given the amount
14
of space that they have.
15
You're right. If this was a private developer,
16
you guys wouldn't be here. You wouldn't have gotten past
17
the door of the planning officer with this kind of a
18
proposal. But it's not. And the fact remains that we are
19
here. We do need to make a decision.
20
So I'm ready to make a motion. And I move that
21
we disapprove -- is that how I put it -- that we disapprove
22
the CSU Center for the Performing Arts site plan advisory
23
review on the basis of the location is unacceptable; the
24
character, I believe, is incompatible, partly because of the
25
location, because the location so affects the character of
0
HN
1 the whole building that I really don't believe that any
2 change in architecture is going to -- is going to make it
3 acceptable. And for those two reasons, I move we
4 disapprove.
5 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. Do we have a second?
6 MS. CRAIG: Second.
7 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. It's been moved and
8 seconded. Brian, we'd like you to step down while we
9 confer. If we have a question, we'll have you back up.
10 Thank you very much. I didn't want to see you standing up
11 needlessly.
12 Okay. We have a motion for disapproval of the
13 site plan for the University Center for the Performing Arts,
14 based on location, character, or -- any board members want
15 to make any additional motion, friendly amendments to, or
16 are you okay with this?
17 I'm going to support the motion for disapproval.
18 Fundamentally, the location. It should be on the east side.
19 Not the north, not on -- not on the west side. My family's
20 gone to that school, when I went to the other high school
21 here, but I have a high respect for FCHS and my friends
22 there, and I feel that the architecture of 1953 is very
23 compatible -- very important to pull forward to the
24 development.
25 And looking back at the Secretary of State
61
1
Interior's, the criteria, I learned some things tonight from
2
the citizens. Thank you very so much for that.
3
You're right. The private sector would have a
4
hard time doing what they're doing tonight, and we need to
5
uphold our process and our standards. And I'm going to
6
support the denial on it for the location, primarily. The
7
character, I'm sorry, but sketches don't cut it for me, with
8
due respect. Because we've seen some projects in our past
9
reviews and we saw some drawings and all that, and we didn't
10
get the same product. So with due respect, the architect
11
and the University will need to really, really work hard on
12
the architecture to really show what it is going to be,
13
because there are perceptions.
14
So based on that, I'm going to support the
15
disapproval.
16 Any other comments? Sally?
17 MS. CRAIG: I'd just like to quickly say that I'm
18 glad we decided not to continue it, because I think we owe
19 Brian Chase a decision tonight so that he can go forward and
20 for us to make this process any longer really isn't fair to
21 CSU. And I think that my fellow board member, Jennifer,
22 capsulated it beautifully in regards to location. It's not
23 there. So why are we worrying about fixing the architect?
24 Because they've already said they aren't moving the
25 building.
40
62
1 MR. GAVALDON: Jennifer?
2 MS. CARPENTER: I have a couple of other
3 comments.
4 First of all, I have to say that I really have
5 been pretty disappointed in CSU in this project. And most
6 of the projects that -- that are done at CSU, I think, have
7 been done beautifully.
8 This is such an important building to the City of
9 Fort Collins. And I really feel like a lot of people have
10 really gone through the process with the University, trying
11 to make some kinds of compromises, trying to talk about
12 different things that could be done. And with each comment,
13 we came back to, nothing can be done. There will be no
14 changes.
15 And it seems to me that before this ever got out
16 into the public, it was decided how it was going to be done,
17 and there really wasn't any listening to the importance of
18 this building to the City of Fort Collins.
19 I understand that you have budget constraints.
20 Every private developer has budget constraints. Every
21 private developer could put more money in their pocket if
22 they do it just the way they want to do it.
23 But the Secretary of Interior standards were put
24 in place to allow adaptive reuse. And this is a wonderful
25 adaptive reuse. It's too bad that it's going to leave such
. 63
1 a sour taste in everybody's mouth. Instead of it being
2 something that the whole community is really behind and
3 appreciates and enjoys, it's going to, instead, be the wart
4 that ruined Fort Collins High School. And I really hate to
5 put it that bluntly, but I think it's really sad.
6 And I -- I would urge you to go back and take a
7 look if there's not some way that you can -- can make some
8 changes that would -- and in particular, location. But when
9 you're wiping out the whole gym front and you're taking the
10 green area out, this is really destroying the facade of a
11 really important building.
12 And I hope that you reconsider. I really hope
13 that the University comes to a different decision and tries
• 14 to be a little bit more cooperative with the community.
15 Thank you
16 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. Mikal?
17 MR. TORGERSON: Yeah, I -- I agree with pretty
18 much everything that was said, both by the audience and my
19 fellow board members.
20 I -- it's hard for me to imagine anything that
21 could be done architecturally that would mitigate the
22 terrible disservice of putting the building in front of the
23 old historic facade, was doing. I was probably just trying
24 to follow procedure there.
25 I absolutely agree that this is the improper
64
1 siting of this addition. It seems like, in a site with so
2 much green space around it, that you have a unique
3 opportunity to really properly add onto this building. And
4 that's unique in an urban setting, that,you have all this
5 extra room. It's almost like green field development.
6 So I would also urge CSU to look at the other two
7 options that I think would probably be well supported by
8 everyone speaking against you tonight and probably by myself
9 as well.
10 I'd like to also say that the Secretary of
11 Interior standards were developed with broad support from
12 people all around the United States. The local historic
13 community, all their regulations, were developed with broad
14 support from our community.
15 And just because CSU can violate those things
16 doesn't mean they should. The fact that they're allowed to
17 by statute doesn't mean they should. It's clearly flying in
18 the face of all those that had an interest in developing
19 those standards.
20 So I'd like the Board of Agriculture, if they see
21 this, to give that serious consideration, and I'd like the
22 CSU team to give that serious consideration and work on what
23 is a real community resource, a major historical resource.
24 There was also some talk about the fact that this
25 design was sort of a form -follows -function approach, and I
U
65
1 think that's true. I don't think that's appropriate when,
2 you're adding onto a historic structure, and I'd urge a
3 different approach as design continues.
4 So for those reasons, I'll be supporting the
5 motion as well.
6 MR. GAVALCON: Make my last comment, and that is,
7 Mr. Brian Chase, you have a real golden opportunity to
8 establish a good partnership with the community, the City of
9 Fort Collins, the historical groups, as lifelong citizens,
10 too, as I was born and grew up here in Fort Collins. And
11 I've seen a lot of good buildings, but I've seen some stuff
12 I have to shy away from.
• 13 This is a big opportunity for CSU to go out into
14 the community. And I missed one session to a family loss,
15 but I sat through the others and I followed through. And I
16 just wanted to say that, this is -- where we've gone, I
17 think we've made some good improvement in the last couple
18 weeks since you've been on -board. Thank you. However, you
19 have a golden opportunity to improve, to enhance, and to
20 facilitate our partnership. And when I talked to the vice
21 president, Jerry Boromi, echoed those words at the open
22 house I went to. And I think you have a golden opportunity
23 to carry forth his vision and his thoughts.
24 Because he had a good point he raised. We need
25 to have citizens come to CSU, not run away from CSU. He
0
m
1 says, "Jerry, why do we run away" -- "why do you guys run
2 away from CSU? Why do people run away?" I said, "I don't
3 know, Mr. Boromi, but here's a golden opportunity to have us
4 run to CSU."
5 And I just want to close with that. Because he
6 really got me thinking, what can we do to avoid running
7 away? Well, we've got a chance to run to, and maybe your
8 direction and your staff's and the architects' and listening
9 to the citizens can make a big difference.
10 May we have a vote, please?
11 THE CLERK: Torgerson?
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 disapproved
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. TORGERSON: Yes.
THE CLERK: Carpenter?
MS. CARPENTER: Yes.
THE CLERK: Craig?
MS. CRAIG: Yes.
THE CLERK: Gavaldon?
MR. GAVALDON: Yes. Okay. The advisory plan is
. Thank you very much for your comments.
(Matter concluded.)
• 0
0
0
0
67
1 STATE OF COLORADO )
2 ) TRANSCRIBER'S CERTIFICATE
3 COUNTY OF LARIMER )
4 I, Jason T. Meadors, a Registered Professional
5 Reporter and Notary Public, State of Colorado, hereby
6 certify that the foregoing proceedings, taken in the matter
7 of the CSU Performing Arts Center, and recorded on Thursday,
8 August 1, 2002, at 300 West Laporte Street, Fort Collins,
9 Colorado, was duly transcribed by me and reduced under my
10 supervision to the foregoing 65 pages; that said transcript
11 is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings so
12 taken.
13 I further certify that I am not related to, employed
14 by, nor of counsel to any of the parties or attorneys herein
15 nor otherwise interested in the outcome of the case.
16 Attested to by me this 21st day of August, 2002.
17
18
19
Jason T. Meadors
20 Meadors Court Reporting, LLC
140 West Oak Street, Suite 266
21 Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
(970) 482-1506
22
My commission expires January 6, 2001.
23
24
25
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
August 1, 2002
Page 3
Project: Modification of Standards, Fossil Lake P.U.D.
Swift Addition (County Referral)
Project Description: Request for a modification for standards within
the Supplemental Regulations for the Fossil
Creek Reservoir Area:
Section LEA.b.(1) requires lots in the "Estate
Residential Area" of the Fossil Creek Reservoir
area to have a minimum lot width of 100 feet.
Section I.EA.b.(4) requires lots in the "Estate
Residential Area' of the Fossil Creek Reservoir
area to have a minimum side yard setback of
20 feet.
Recommendation: Denial
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence:
Troy Jones, City Planner gave the staff presentation. He stated that the property is in
Larimer County and is subject to approval by the Board of County Commissioners. Mr.
Jones showed slides of context diagrams of the site and surrounding properties in the
area. He stated that the applicant was requesting, in the area of this plan that is
designated Urban Estates, a variety of setbacks. Planner Jones referred to a table in
the Boards packet that explains which lots are asking for which setback variance.
There are four different kinds of variance requests:
• To reduce the side setback from 20 feet to 15 feet. That is all of the lots that are
shown on the table (21 — 58).
• To reduce the side setback on lots that are adjacent to greenbelts to 7.5 feet on lots
38, 42, 43, 50, 51 and 58.
• To reduce the 100-foot minimum lot width to an equivalent of 80 feet lot width on
lots 24, 25, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 41, 42 and 43.
• A request to reconfigure the lot lines on Lots 27 and 28.
Mr. Jones reported that staff was recommending denial of the request. He stated that
fundamentally, staff felt the applicant should have just laid the lots out in accordance
with the standards, rather than laying it out this way and coming back to ask for a
modification. Staff felt that it was a foreseeable situation.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
August 1, 2002
Page 4
Jim Birdsall, Everitt Companies gave the applicant presentation. He explained some of
the history of the project. He stated that they purchased the property from Louie Swift,
who owns the farm east of the Swift Addition property. There was a relatively short
contractual obligation to Mr. Swift as far as a timeline he had for them to do their due
diligence. As part of that obligation a plan was put together that they felt was consistent
with the supplemental regulations of the Larimer County Land Use Code relative to the
Fossil Creek Area. That would be the first plan that you would see on the diagram that
Mr. Jones mentioned. The original plan was relatively gridded, the estate area, which is
the southern half , is basically a grid. Relatively little open space and very efficient as to
the number of lots. There are 130 total lots total and the revised plan has 116 lots. The
original had 46 estate lots and the revised plan only has 38. The original plan, in the
estate area only, had 1.4 acres of open space and the revised plan has 4.3 acres. They
got the first plan approved to fulfill their obligation to Mr. Swift and then they looked at
doing some revisions to the plan and the plan before the Board is what they came up
with.
Mr. Birdsall stated that they have loosened up the street configuration, they have
substantially more open space, the pedestrian connectivity is at least equal to, and in
their opinion superior to the original plan. One of the major benefits to the revised plan
is there is a substantial greenbelt on the south end of the development. The Resource
Management Area that is part of the Fossil Creek Plan is between the Swift Addition
and Fossil Creek Reservoir. There is a quarter mile buffer of open space that will
permanently protect the reservoir from development and encroachment from humans.
That area is closed off from human activity to protect the sensitive habitat that is on the
north side of the reservoir. Their intention of creating open space between the lots and
the Resource Management Area is to create a buffer that will be managed and
maintained by the Homeowners Association.
Mr. Birdsall reviewed their requests again for the Board. Mr. Birdsall requested that the
Board recommend that these modifications move forward and recommend an approval
to the Board of County Commissioners.
Citizen Input
None.
Member Craig referred to a cul-de-sac to the south that opens up into the green area,
that she assumed was to work as a buffer to the Resource Management Area. If that
area is opened up would it not make people want to go down into it.
Mr. Birdsall replied that originally that was designed as an easement. There is a sewer
line and stormdrainage that drain through that area. The Storm Drainage Department
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
August 1, 2002
Page 5
does not like to have storm sewer pipe in an easement because if they ever need to get
in there and maintain it, they would rather do work over a greenbelt that is owned by a
HOA rather than do work in someone's lot. That was a requirement of the Storm
Drainage Department to have that as a open tract. The Natural Resources Department
is very concerned about that and they will have to do fencing with an open rail fence
across that opening and have signage.
Member Carpenter asked to see the 7 lots that are being requested to reduce the side
yard setback.
Mr. Birdsall pointed out the lots on the map the estate lots are colored red and the open
space is colored white. Any lot that has open space directly adjacent to its side, were
the lots that they were requesting.
Member Craig moved to send a recommendation of denial to the Board of County
Commissioners for both modification requests as so stated by the findings of
staff on page 5 of the staff report.
Member Carpenter seconded the motion.
Member Craig commented that she very thoroughly read staffs evaluation and findings
and she agreed with staff completely. She did not see any circumstance for the
modification request. She did not see any reason for the Board to be granting a
request.
The motion was approved 5-0.
There was no other business.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m.