Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 05/14/2014LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting 300 Laporte Avenue May 14, 2014 Minutes Council Liaison: Gino Campana (970-460-6329) Staff Liaison: Laurie Kadrich (970-221-6750) Commission Chairperson: Ron Sladek CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: The meeting was called to order at 5:35 p.m. by Chair Sladek. Members present were Ron Sladek, Meg Dunn, Kristin Gensmer, Pat Tvede, Dave Lingle, Alexandra Wallace, Maren Bzdek, Doug Ernest and Belinda Zink (arrived at 5:43 p.m.). Staff present: Historic Preservation Planners Karen McWilliams and Joshua Weinberg and Administrative Staff Gretchen Schiager. EXCUSED ABSENCE: None PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Sladek requested two minor changes to the minutes. Ms. Tvede moved to accept the Landmark Preservation Commission minutes of April 9, 2014 with the specified changes. Ms. Gensmer seconded. (Motion passed 7-0, with Mr. Lingle abstaining and Ms. Zink not yet present.) [Time Reference: 5:37 p.m.] 2. UTILITIES CUSTOMER SERVICE BUILDING – UPDATE Brian Hergott, Operation Services Mr. Hergott provided an update on the Utility Customer Service Building (CSB) for Block 32. After receiving comments on the Preliminary Design Review from City staff, and from the Landmark Preservation Commission at its March meeting, it was decided that the Butterfly Building will remain in place, and the CSB will be built around it and set back north and west to provide relief between the two structures. SUMMARY OF MEETING: The Commission:  Approved April 9, 2014 Minutes.  Heard an update on the Utilities Customer Service Building.  Conducted a Conceptual Development Review for 808 W. Prospect.  Voted to recommend that Council adopt the updated Old Town Design Standards.  Discussed the Poudre River Resources Report. Approved by Commission at their September 10, 2014 meeting. Landmark Preservation Commission May 14, 2014 - 2 - Commission Questions Members asked for clarification on the new configuration and location of the CSB. Mr. Hergott stated that the configuration was the same as the previous design, but the CSB had been moved about ten feet to the North, and slightly to the West, creating a small entry plaza with a diagonal sidewalk. Members expressed appreciation for the efforts to address the Commission’s concerns, and applauded the creation of an entry plaza that celebrates the Butterfly Building. Members asked whether any of the objectives for the site were sacrificed in order to change the orientation of the CSB, to which Mr. Hergott responded that they were still able to meet their objectives. Members inquired about the angled design of the CSB roof, and Mr. Hergott said it was an effort to complement the Butterfly Building. Members were pleased with that idea. Public Input None Commission Discussion None Commission Feedback Mr. Sladek said the general consensus of the Commission is that they are happy with the changes, and glad to see the Butterfly Building as a highlight of the entryway to the plaza. [Time Reference: 5:45 p.m.] 3. CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW: 808 WEST PROSPECT Christian and Robin Bachelet, Applicants Staff Report Ms. McWilliams presented background and contextual information, and reviewed the Land Use Codes applicable to this item. Applicant Presentation Mr. Larson with Vaught Frye Larson Architects (VFLA) at 401 Mountain Avenue, the architect on the project, provided additional background. He explained that the drawings were originally developed, and the project was permitted, in 2008. A structural slab was constructed, and site work was performed, at a cost of approximately one million dollars, but the project was put on hold due to economic shifts. Because of the time lapse, the permit is no longer valid, and the project is now going through a second vetting process with the City. The applicants are seeking the Commission’s feedback with the understanding that they have an existing structural foundation already in place. Ms. Bachelet, 706 South College Avenue, mentioned that CSURF has acquired the property, but the Bachelets will potentially ground-lease it back and act as the developer and long-term operator of the property. Mr. Callan with CSURF at 601 South Howes, property owner, explained that they are working with the Bachelets because of the synergies that exist with the other property they Landmark Preservation Commission May 14, 2014 - 3 - own in the area, and to improve the neighborhood. At this point, they are not fully committed to a use for the property, and are trying to understand all the issues involved. They are exploring a lot of different options, including the possibility of the University using the site for academic activities or other core campus needs. CSURF also owns the two properties to the east, but does not yet have plans for those properties. Mr. Callan mentioned that in 1999 when the current West Central Neighborhood Plan was developed, this block and area were identified for high density mixed-use development. However, this type of development has not occurred, largely because it is hard to accomplish due to the historic “burdens” in the area. Public Input Per Hogestad, 1601 Sheely Drive, identified himself as representing the Sheely Historic District and the Wallenberg neighborhood. While they are in favor of improving that property, which is currently an eyesore, they are also concerned about saving the historic homes in the area. There are several Craftsman style homes that contribute to the fabric of the neighborhood. Craftsman elements, such as window patterns, rooflines, etc., could easily be incorporated into the design of new developments, even five-story buildings. Commission Questions Members asked whether the Sheely Historic District was happy with the project that was approved previously. Mr. Hogestad said the project could definitely have been improved upon. He believed the architectural language of the design was confused between the small, single-story 1960’s homes on the south side of Prospect and the Craftsman style homes along the north side of the 600-1000 blocks of Prospect. He stated that the Land Use Code is pretty clear on its response to adjacent historic properties. Members asked Mr. Hogestad if he would like to see the design details for a new development focus more on the Craftsman styles on the north side of Prospect, rather than the more modern styles on the south side. Mr. Hogestad stated that it would make sense to look at the pattern and texture of the Craftsman homes in that multiple-block section. Clark Mapes, City Planner, asked whether the previously-approved plan reflected the design on the south side of Prospect, and if so, was that a response to direction provided by the City at the time, and should this new development represent a shift toward the Craftsman style? Mr. Hogestad does not believe any direction to conform to the Historic District was given to the previous developer. One Member recalled that the direction given by the Sheely Drive neighborhood to the developer at that time indicated that 808 West Prospect should look more like Mid-Century Modern, rather than Craftsman. Mr. Hogestad said that it was discussed, but there was no historic designation on the north side at that time. Commission Discussion Mr. Sladek asked for clarification that tonight’s proceeding would not include voting. Ms. McWilliams said that the purpose of a Preliminary Development Review is not to vote, but rather to state preferences, opinions and provide direction. Prior to the project going before the Planning and Zoning Board, the Landmark Preservation Commission will have the opportunity to provide a recommendation and comments. Landmark Preservation Commission May 14, 2014 - 4 - Members reiterated that the Land Use Code, Section 3.4.7, is very specific as to how new structures should be designed, emphasizing that the guidelines should be followed to the “maximum extent feasible”, exercising “all possible efforts to comply”. Members discussed how the Commission would define the character of the site and surrounding neighborhood, with regard to 3.4.7a, given that there are two different contexts that the building would relate to, and it would be difficult to satisfy both sets of architectural vocabularies. The Members agreed that the Craftsman style was what they should focus on. Members agreed that it would be unreasonable not to allow the existing slab to remain, and that the footprint is a reasonable thing to accept. Members had concerns that the current design shoots straight up, and it would be nice to blend better with the two small houses in front of it. There was some discussion about perhaps limiting the building to three stories rather than four, so as not to tower over the historic houses. There was a suggestion that the Craftsman style might be conducive to making the east wall of the new building look a little lower. Members suggested making changes to the roofline to be more similar to Craftsman style, and add some variety. The use of dormers and attics were suggested. Members pointed out that there are a lot of interesting things the developers could do with Craftsman style. Commission Feedback Mr. Sladek summarized the Commission’s feedback, saying they do not object to the new building being there, or to utilizing the existing foundation. While it is, and should be, a contemporary building, they would like to see some reflection of Craftsman detail incorporated into the design. It would be nice to do some stepping up on the east side from the one and a half story building at 730 West Prospect to the taller building. The building at 730 has nice Craftsman details to draw from, such as six-over-one light windows and shed roof dormers, and it would be easy to pick up on some other elements of Craftsman homes along that street, such as battered piers. Mr. Sladek said the street needs attention, and the Commission looks forward to seeing interesting designs and talking further. [Time Reference: 6:45 p.m.] 4. RECOMMENDATION: ADOPTION OF OLD TOWN DESIGN STANDARDS BY CITY COUNCIL Josh Weinberg, Preservation Planner Staff Report As this topic has already been discussed extensively by the Commission at previous meetings, Mr. Weinberg gave a very brief review of what is being proposed. Commission Questions and Discussion There was discussion about the need to include references and/or credits for photos in the future, and the Members agreed that a general credits page would be sufficient. Landmark Preservation Commission May 14, 2014 - 5 - Mr. Weinberg mentioned that most of the photographs were already in the possession of the project consultant from when they worked on the original design standards in the 1980’s. Digital copies of all of the images used are available, and any originals can be duplicated and distributed to the local historic archive, if they don’t already have them. Members mentioned that Council had questioned the inclusion of wind turbines and solar panels in text and photos. Mr. Weinberg said they were included as a guideline for how to respond if an applicant wanted to use them in the future, but he would review the document again to ensure alignment with Council directives. Public Input None Commission Deliberation Mr. Lingle moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to City Council the adoption of the updated Old Town Design Standards. Ms. Tvede seconded. The motion passed 9-0. Mr. Sladek thanked Mr. Weinberg and Ms. McWilliams for their hard work on this project, and asked that they convey the Commission’s thanks to the project consultant, Winter & Company. [Time Reference: 7:00 p.m.] 5. DISCUSSION: POUDRE RIVER RESOURCES REPORT Mr. Sladek recused himself from the discussion as the preparer of the report. Before leaving, he confirmed that the report was not in order of priority, but rather was a linear description of the resources along the river corridor, bank to bank. He suggested the Commission be as specific as possible in any recommendations to the Natural Resources Department. Staff Report None Commission Discussion The Commission agreed that the seven resources identified in the report as probable or potential candidates for landmark designation, pending additional review, are those they wish to bring to the attention of the Natural Resources Department. Those seven are as follows: 1) Coy Farm Dam 2) Unidentified Concrete Structure 3) Colorado & Southern (BNSF) Railway Bridge 4) Coy Diversion Dam, Headgate & Ditch 5) Union Pacific Railroad Bridge 6) Lake Canal Diversion Dam & Headworks 7) Mason & Hottel Mill Race Headgate Landmark Preservation Commission May 14, 2014 - 6 - The Members discussed the wording of the letter they would submit to the Natural Resources Department, and the need to be as specific as possible about what the Commission is requesting of the City with regard to these seven structures. These resources should be considered potentially eligible for landmark designation, or otherwise historically sensitive, and need to be documented and reviewed. It was also suggested that the letter should prioritize the structures, based on those known to be significant, versus those that simply need to be reviewed for that purpose. Members asked Mr. Weinberg whether this would require a motion at the June meeting. Mr. Weinberg said the Commission can draft a letter to be forwarded to the Natural Resources Department through staff, and include a request for a response. The Commission can discuss it at the work session, and can then decide whether or not there needs to be a vote on it. Members inquired about the timeline for the river development, and Mr. Weinberg said that since the plans are in progress, they would probably appreciate having input from the Commission as soon as possible. Mr. Ernest and Ms. Tvede offered to draft a letter to the Natural Resources Department, and present it to the Commission for review and action at the next meeting. Mr. Ernest adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by Gretchen Schiager