Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 11/09/2016City of Fort Collins Page 1 November 9, 2016 Doug Ernest, Acting Chair City Council Chambers Meg Dunn City Hall West Bud Frick 300 Laporte Avenue Kristin Gensmer Fort Collins, Colorado Per Hogestad Dave Lingle Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 and Alexandra Wallace 881 (HD) on the Comcast cable system Belinda Zink The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. Regular Meeting 11/9/16 Minutes • CALL TO ORDER Acting Chair Ernest called the meeting to order at 5:31 p.m. • ROLL CALL PRESENT: Dunn, Zink, Wallace, Gensmer, Lingle, Ernest ABSENT: Hogestad, Frick STAFF: McWilliams, Bzdek, Bumgarner, Yatabe, Schiager • AGENDA REVIEW No changes to posted agenda. • STAFF REPORTS None. • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. Landmark Preservation Commission City of Fort Collins Page 2 November 9, 2016 • DISCUSSION AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 26, 2016 REGULAR MEETING. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the October 26, 2016 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. Mr. Lingle moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the Consent Agenda of the October 26, 2016 regular meeting as presented. Ms. Gensmer seconded. The motion passed 6-0. 2. JEFFERSON AND LINDEN RESTAURANT (PDP160030) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a proposed design for a restaurant at the northwest corner of Jefferson Street and Linden Street. The building consists of a single story building of 5,690 square feet with a patio dining space on the east end of the building facing Linden Street. The building will share parking with Rodizio in the lot to the west. The development site is within the Old Town Fort Collins National Register Historic District as well as the River District. Final review will be a Type 1 hearing with a hearing officer. APPLICANT: Chris Aronson, Vaught Frye Larson Architects Ms. Gensmer & Ms. Wallace both noted having missed the two previous meetings on this topic, but said they had reviewed the videos and are prepared to participate. Chair Ernest reviewed the order of proceedings for this item. Mr. Yatabe clarified that this item, as a recommendation to the decision maker, is not appealable. Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented some background information and details about the area of adjacency and buildings included therein. She also summarized the design updates since the previous meeting and reviewed the staff analysis of the project based on Land Use Code Section 3.4.7(F)1-5. Staff has found that the proposed project has a massing, setback, visual connections, window patterning, and prominent primary entrance are compatible with the Union Pacific depot. The proposed project utilizes materials compatible with the area of adjacency, does not impede existing visual and pedestrian connections, and will preserve existing trees to the maximum extent feasible. Applicant Presentation Mr. Aronson explained changes made to the materials, entrance and roof based on the Commission’s input. He stated horizontal banding has been removed to create a more vertical rhythm and described the proportions of the materials in the updated design. Public Input None. Staff Response Ms. Bzdek had no additional information. Commission Questions and Discussion Ms. Dunn moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to the Decision Maker approval of the Jefferson and Linden Project Development Plan (PDP160030), finding it is in compliance with the standards contained in Land Use Code section 3.4.7 in regard to compatibility with the character of the project’s area of adjacency for the reasons stated in the staff report. Ms. Gensmer seconded. Ms. Dunn commented that the applicant did a great job of utilizing the Commission’s comments regarding the entry way. Ms. Wallace stated the ultimate building design is better than the original design and commended the use of grey brick. City of Fort Collins Page 3 November 9, 2016 Mr. Lingle agreed with Ms. Dunn and Ms. Wallace and expressed appreciation for the efforts of the applicant and their willingness to reexamine the design. He stated the building material selection and the way it has been used complies with Section 3.4.7 F3 and commented the design provides a nice connection between the Historic Downtown District and the River District. He commended Ms. Bzdek’s staff report. Ms. Gensmer commented on the evolution of the design and its response to Commission comments. She stated she does not have any concerns with regard to the project complying with the applicable Code sections. Ms. Zink expressed appreciation for the efforts of the applicant and stated the new design captures visual elements of the Jefferson storefronts without copying them. She commended the building’s symmetry, articulation, and use of materials to tie in the railroad. Chair Ernest agreed with the other comments, adding the changes have brought the project into compliance with all components of Section 3.4.7 F. He complimented the applicant’s presentation. Ms. Dunn complemented the design and its inclusion of old and new elements and agreed with Ms. Zink’s comment regarding the railroad. The motion passed 6:0. 3. THE STANDARD - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is seeking comments regarding the proposed design for a student housing project on West Prospect Road and Lake Street, east of Shields Street. The 4.23 acre development is comprised of two predominately 5-story buildings, one (Building A) facing Prospect Road and the other (Building B) facing Lake Street. APPLICANT: Linda Ripley, Ripley Design, Inc. Mr. Lingle recused himself, having not been present at the previous discussion of this item. Staff Report Ms. McWilliams stated the Commission’s role is to define the area of adjacency with regard to relevant historic properties, evaluate the proposed project relative to the historic resources for compliance with Land Use Code Section 3.4.7, and make a recommendation to the decision maker once final plans are submitted. She went on to discuss the proposed project and stated staff is recommending an area of adjacency which contains three designated Fort Collins landmarks, two of which, at 1600 and 1601 Sheely Drive, are part of the Sheely Drive Historic District, and the third of which is the Emma Brown/Susan Winter home located at 720 West Prospect Road on the parcel that abuts building B. Three other properties within the proposed area of adjacency have been identified as being potentially individually eligible for Fort Collins designation: the Plymouth Congregational Church and the Church Rectory, at 916 and 920 West Prospect Road, and 730 West Prospect Road. Ms. McWilliams discussed the properties in detail. Applicant Presentation Andrew Young, Landmark Properties, introduced himself, provided some information about his company, and introduced his team. Jason Gadson, Dwell Design, provided a brief description of the project, the design progression, and the site plan, and discussed the relationship of the project to the proposed area of adjacency, the new stadium, Stadium Apartments, and The Slab. Jay Silverman, Dwell Design, discussed the guidelines and design requirements of both the HMN zone and the West Central Area Plan and stated the proposed project complies with both in terms of massing and density. He discussed the relationship of the proposed project with the Sheely neighborhood and the Church and detailed building materials, design, and window forms as well as landscaping and visual and pedestrian connections. Mr. Silverman stated they have worked with the Church on a proposed wall to make it appear to be an extension of the Church and its campus. Public Input None. Staff Response City of Fort Collins Page 4 November 9, 2016 Ms. McWilliams had no additional information. Commission Questions and Discussion Ms. Dunn asked why the house next to 1601 Sheely Drive, just to its south, was not included in the proposed area of adjacency. Ms. McWilliams replied that property was not reviewed as it did not appear to be in the sightline. Ms. Dunn stated she would like to receive information on the view from the backyard of that property. Ms. McWilliams replied she would return to the Commission with that information. Regarding the area of adjacency, Ms. Dunn expressed concern with not having the necessary information regarding the home south of 1601 Sheely Drive. Ms. Zink stated 1600 and 1601 Sheely Drive are adjacent to the proposed project, whereas the other house is not; therefore, she did not agree it should be included in the area of adjacency. She supported staff’s recommendation for the area of adjacency. Ms. Wallace agreed with Ms. Zink noting an extensive tree cover exists in the area. Ms. Gensmer and Chair Ernest also agreed with Ms. Zink. Ms. Zink moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission adopt the following properties as the area of adjacency for the proposed application known as The Standard: The properties located at 1600 and 1601 Sheely Drive, and the properties at 720, 730, 916 and 920 West Prospect Road. Ms. Gensmer seconded. Ms. Dunn stated she will support the motion as the house which she is referencing has enough similar characteristics with 1600 and 1601 that her concerns will already be covered. She suggested future consideration as to whether buildings with a background view of a new development should be included in an area of adjacency. The motion passed 5:0. Ms. Dunn thanked the applicant for the additional perspective renderings but questioned the distance of a perspective shown from across the street. Mr. Silverman showed the angle from which the view originated. Ms. Dunn stated it would be helpful to have a view from the sidewalk as well as a perspective view of the garage from the historic houses at 720 and 730. Mr. Silverman showed the elevations of building B and the parking structure and discussed the architectural treatments and landscaping. Ms. Dunn asked about the impact stormwater runoff onto Prospect might have on the historic properties. Mr. Silverman replied the project includes extensive detention structures which will control the outflow of water. Ms. Dunn asked if that could be included in the Plan of Protection. Ms. McWilliams replied it could be included; however, the Plan of Protection is for construction not long-term management. Those issues will, however, be addressed by Planning staff. Chair Ernest asked about a staff comment regarding the visual connection with the Church being better maintained using a planted tree line or shrubbery, though the preference of the Church is for an actual wall. Mr. Silverman replied the Church does desire a solid wall. Ms. Zink asked if the wall is on the property of The Standard or the Church. Mr. Silverman replied it is on The Standard property. Chair Ernest noted the concerns of the Commission and staff had been addressed by the applicants, as per page 51 of the staff report. Ms. Dunn commented that changing the building detailing was helpful. Ms. Gensmer and Ms. Wallace agreed and supported the incorporation of the brick elements. Ms. Zink agreed and stated the design is improved and more cohesive with the historic buildings. She stated she appreciates the setbacks, the landscaping which will enhance the site design, the details of the entrances inside the courtyards, and the skillful blending of modern, mid-century and craftsman design. Chair Ernest asked if anything is missing that would be needed for final review. Ms. McWilliams replied this is only the first round of review and the project will go through at least one more round of staff review. Chair Ernest suggested Commission members individually state their opinions regarding the project. City of Fort Collins Page 5 November 9, 2016 Ms. Ripley stated they would be happy to return before the Commission with any changes if members were willing to vote tonight. Ms. Dunn stated the real issue is mass and scale and since the applicant is so early in the process, she would like to see additional perspectives from the historic buildings across the street. Ms. Gensmer agreed mass and scale are an issue and stated she would also like to see the additional perspectives. She added that given the potential for changes in the project, it would seem to be advantageous for the project to come before the Commission again. Ms. Wallace stated she would like to see the project come before the Commission again. Ms. Zink agreed. Chair Ernest commented on Section 3.4.7 F1 stating the height, mass and scale are such that the size of all of the buildings in the area of adjacency are out of scale; therefore, the building materials and other changes are particularly important for the project. Chair Ernest requested the applicant just present any changes when it comes before the Commission again. Ms. Dunn requested perspectives from various pedestrian views. Ms. McWilliams noted perspectives from across the street involving height, scale and massing are not relevant to the decision of the Commission. Mr. Lingle rejoined the meeting and the Commission took a short break at this point in the meeting. 4. OLD TOWN NEIGHBORHOODS PLAN PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This item is for the Commission to comment upon the Old Town Neighborhoods Plan. The Plan is a combined update of the Eastside and Westside Neighborhood Plans originally adopted in the 1980’s. APPLICANT: Ryan Mounce, City Planner and Pete Wray, Sr. City Planner Applicant Presentation Mr. Wray stated the Old Town Neighborhoods Plan addresses emerging issues related to land use, transportation and mobility, housing, compatibility and sustainability. He discussed the plan process and components and outlined the draft timeline and implementation strategies. He also discussed possible rezoning which would better support the established development pattern and character of the conservation zoning areas. Commission Questions and Discussion Chair Ernest asked about the best way for the Commission to provide feedback after tonight. Mr. Mounce suggested members could provide feedback through Historic Preservation staff for consolidation and presentation to Planning staff. Ms. Dunn identified herself as a member of the stakeholder group and asked about guidelines for new accessory buildings or carriage houses. Mr. Mounce replied that is excellent feedback and agreed that would be an important inclusion. Ms. Gensmer complimented the document as being approachable and commended the eye-catching segment regarding the design assistance program. Chair Ernest suggested comments from the Commission members on character, land use and setbacks might be particularly useful. Mr. Lingle commended the document as being well organized. He requested additional background regarding carriage house opportunities in the NCL zone and suggested property maintenance issues should be addressed. Chair Ernest stated he will be sending comments to the Historic Preservation staff and urged other members to do the same. Mr. Wray thanked the Commission and stated they will be returning in December.