Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/20/2018 - Landmark Preservation Commission - Agenda - Regular MeetingMeg Dunn, Chair City Council Chambers Alexandra Wallace, Vice Chair City Hall West Michael Bello 300 Laporte Avenue Katie Dorn Fort Collins, Colorado Kristin Gensmer Per Hogestad Kevin Murray Mollie Simpson Fort Collins is a Certified Local Government (CLG) authorized by the National Park Service and History Colorado based on its compliance with federal and state historic preservation standards. CLG standing requires Fort Collins to maintain a Landmark Preservation Commission composed of members of which a minimum of 40% meet federal standards for professional experience from preservation-related disciplines, including, but not limited to, historic architecture, architectural history, archaeology, and urban planning. For more information, see Article III, Division 19 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code. 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. Video of the meeting will be broadcast at 1:30 p.m. the following day through the Comcast cable system on Channel 14 or 881 (HD). Please visit http://www.fcgov.com/fctv/ for the daily cable schedule. The video will also be available for later viewing on demand here: http://www.fcgov.com/fctv/video-archive.php. Regular Meeting June 20, 2018 5:30 PM • CALL TO ORDER • ROLL CALL • AGENDA REVIEW • STAFF REPORTS • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Landmark Preservation Commission • DISCUSSION AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF MAY 16, 2018 REGULAR MEETING The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the May 16, 2018 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. 2. 247 LINDEN – CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is seeking conceptual review comments from the Landmark Preservation Commission for the development of residential lofts at 247-249 Linden Street in the Old Town Historic District. The proposal includes modifications or replacement of all of the existing doors and windows on the façade and the second floor of the rear elevation within the existing openings, as well as new openings and garage doors on the first floor of the rear elevation on the alley. The project also includes a rooftop addition to create additional square footage for the two residential units associated with the project, and the removal of a portion of the masonry on the side elevations to install railing for the residential patios. APPLICANT/OWNER: David Kress, RB+B (architect); Tom Moore (owner) 3. SIGN CODE UPDATE: RESTORATION OF HISTORIC SIGNS The purpose of this item is to request a recommendation from the Landmark Preservation Commission to City Council regarding a code change that would revise the process for review of sign permit applications related to historic signs. • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT Date: Roll Call Bello Dorn Vacant Gensmer Hogestad Murray Simpson Wallace Dunn Vote N/A  absent absent  6 present 1 – Minutes of May 16, 2018 Dorn Bello Wallace Vacant Gensmer Murray Simpson Hogestad Dunn Y Y absent Y N/A Y absent Y Y 6:0 Roll Call & Voting Record Landmark Preservation Commission 6/20/2018 DATE:-'=· - --~_0_-_.._/-=<il- LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Sign In Sheet THIS IS AP ART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD Please contact Gretchen Schlager at 970-224-6098 or gschiager@fcgov.com if you inadvertently end up with it. Th you! Landmark Preservation Commission Hearing Date: June 20, 2018 Document Log (Any written comments or documents received since the agenda packet was published.) DISCUSSION AGENDA: 1. Draft Minutes for the LPC May 16, 2018 Hearing 2. 247 LINDEN – CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW • Citizen emails/letters: o None • Staff Presentation added to packet on 6/19/18 • Applicant Presentation replaced with updated version on 6/19/18 3. SIGN CODE UPDATE: RESTORATION OF HISTORIC SIGNS • Citizen emails/letters: o None • This item was moved from the work session agenda to the hearing agenda and added to the packet on 6/19/18. • Draft Sign Code was added to the packet on 6/20/18 EXHIBITS RECEIVED DURING HEARING: Item # Exhibit # Description: 3 1 Staff Presentation 2 1 1983 Façade Drawing Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY June 20, 2018 Landmark Preservation Commission STAFF Gretchen Schiager, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF MAY 16, 2018 REGULAR MEETING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the May 16, 2018 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. ATTACHMENTS 1. LPC May 16, 2018 Minutes - DRAFT (PDF) 1 Packet Pg. 3 DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 1 May 16, 2018 Meg Dunn, Chair City Council Chambers Alexandra Wallace, Vice Chair City Hall West Michael Bello 300 Laporte Avenue Katie Dorn Fort Collins, Colorado Kristin Gensmer Per Hogestad Kevin Murray Mollie Simpson 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. Video of the meeting will be broadcast at 1:30 p.m. the following day through the Comcast cable system on Channel 14 or 881 (HD). Please visit http://www.fcgov.com/fctv/ for the daily cable schedule. The video will also be available for later viewing on demand here: http://www.fcgov.com/fctv/video-archive.php. Regular Meeting May 16, 2018 Minutes • CALL TO ORDER Chair Dunn called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. • ROLL CALL PRESENT: Dunn, Gensmer, Simpson, Dorn, Bello, Murray ABSENT: Hogestad, Wallace STAFF: McWilliams, Bzdek, Bumgarner, Yatabe, Schiager, Wray • AGENDA REVIEW Ms. Bzdek explained that Item #4, 903 Stover, was withdrawn from the agenda, and will be handled administratively. Chair Dunn reviewed the Consent Agenda and confirmed that no one wished to pull any items from consent. • STAFF REPORTS None. Landmark Preservation Commission 1.a Packet Pg. 4 Attachment: LPC May 16, 2018 Minutes - DRAFT (6893 : MINUTES OF MAY 16, 2018) DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 2 May 16, 2018 • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. • CONSENT AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 18, 2018 REGULAR MEETING. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the April 18, 2018 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. 2. 1518 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a proposal to add a rear, story addition to the residence. The property was determined to be individually eligible as a Fort Collins Landmark. APPLICANT: Jeff Emmel, owner Mr. Bello moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the Consent Agenda of the May 16, 2018 regular meeting as presented. Ms. Gensmer seconded. The motion passed 6-0. • CONSENT CALENDAR FOLLOW-UP None. • DISCUSSION AGENDA 3. 1501 PETERSON – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is seeking a report of acceptability from the Landmark Preservation Commission for new storm and screen units in the first and second stories. APPLICANT/OWNER: Sally and Robert Linton Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report, describing the property, the proposed work, and the role of the Commission. She stated staff has found the project complies with the applicable Municipal Code standards. Applicant Presentation Mr. Wernimont of Colorado Sash & Door, the Contractor for the work on the windows, addressed the Commission to clarify details about the work. Public Input None. Commission Questions and Discussion Mr. Murray thanked Mr. Wernimont for the additional information he had provided. Mr. Wernimont explained the mechanism and workings of the chosen window solution. He said they intend to make all the windows operable to allow ventilation options. Mr. Murray asked if the window system is reversible. Mr. Wernimont explained that a missing piece is being replaced, adding that it could be removed if desired. Ms. Dorn asked about how the screen aligns with the window glass. Mr. Wernimont explained that the windows would look like the originals. Mr. Wernimont stated they will ensure the storm screen is flush with the brick mold, unless the original is not flush. 1.a Packet Pg. 5 Attachment: LPC May 16, 2018 Minutes - DRAFT (6893 : MINUTES OF MAY 16, 2018) DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 3 May 16, 2018 Commission Deliberation Finding no significant adverse effect on the designated property, and with all necessary information in place, Mr. Murray moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission waive conceptual review and move to final review of the proposed work at 1501 Peterson Street. Ms. Gensmer seconded. The motion passed 6:0. Mr. Murray moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission provide a report of acceptability for the proposed work at 1501 Peterson Street, finding that it meets the criteria of Chapter 14, Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code, “Approval of Proposed Work,” as described in the staff report. Ms. Dorn seconded. The motion passed 6:0. 4. 903 STOVER – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW This item was withdrawn from the agenda. 5. 725 MATHEWS – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is seeking a report of acceptability from the Landmark Preservation Commission for rehabilitation of the windows on the residence, which will include installation of wood storm windows and wood screens, weather stripping, in-kind replication and replacement of missing blind stops, and weather stripping and repair of the front door. APPLICANT/OWNER: Victoria Bridges Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report, providing information about the property, the proposed work and the role of the Commission. She stated staff has found the project complies with the applicable Municipal Code standards. Applicant Presentation Mr. Wernimont of Colorado Sash & Door, the Contractor for the work on the windows, addressed the Commission about the work to be done. He provided details that were not available at the previous Conceptual Review. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion Mr. Murray asked about the missing blind stop. Mr. Wernimont replied it was cut off in some locations; however, it would have been part of the original blind stop. Mr. Murray asked about the door replacement parts. Mr. Wernimont stated the current door was modified poorly; therefore, the plan is to remove the door from its frame, repair it correctly, and rehang the original door. Commission Deliberation Finding no significant adverse effect on the designated property, and with all necessary information in place, Mr. Murray moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission waive conceptual review and move to final review of the proposed work at 725 Mathews Street. Ms. Gensmer seconded. The motion passed 6-0. Mr. Murray appreciated the original door will be replaced. Mr. Murray moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission provide a report of acceptability for the proposed work at 725 Mathews Street, finding that it meets the criteria of Chapter 14, Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code, “Approval of Proposed Work,” as described in the staff report. Ms. Simpson seconded. The motion passed 6-0. [Secretary’s Note: The Commission took short break at 6:00, resuming the meeting at 6:05] 1.a Packet Pg. 6 Attachment: LPC May 16, 2018 Minutes - DRAFT (6893 : MINUTES OF MAY 16, 2018) DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 4 May 16, 2018 6. 221 EAST MOUNTAIN - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a proposed four-story, mixed-use development of office, retail and residential uses with a single-level parking structure below grade. The 0.449- acre lot is at 221 East Mountain Avenue on Block 131, lots 1-6, at the former location of the Goodyear Tire Shop. The project fronts both East Mountain Avenue and Mathews Street on the southwest corner of the intersection and fronts alleys to the south and west. The approximate square footage total, including the garage, is 90,172 square feet. The project is within the Downtown (D) District. APPLICANT: Bob Hosanna, Neenan Archistruction Ms. Simpson recused herself from this item due to a conflict. Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report, reviewing the proposal and describing the surrounding historic properties. She displayed 3D modeling images prepared by Planning staff. She explained that this is an opportunity for the Commission to provide comments, but no formal recommendation will be made at this time. Applicant Presentation Mr. Hosanna, Neenan Archistruction, gave the Applicant presentation. He addressed the Commission’s concerns about the variation in height between the proposed development and the surrounding buildings. He pointed out the patterns in height around downtown and noted there are drastic height differences in the area. Additionally, he stated the proposed fence for the roof-top dog park will be 6 feet in height, which is not taller than the required mechanical screening elements. Mr. Hosanna discussed downtown streetscapes and explained the changes made to the building in mass and materials to address the Commission’s questions about how it relates to the Frozen Food building. He also pointed out how they brought the panels to the ground to satisfy the Commission’s concerns. He talked about the changes to the windows that are meant to reference the Frozen Food building, and discussed the articulation and material variation used in the design to respond to Mr. Hogestad’s comments at the previous Conceptual Review. He said the Planning Department had asked them to increase the articulation at the ground level and discussed the purpose of the vertical elements on the south elevation. Public Input None. Commission Questions and Discussion Chair Dunn directed the Commission’s attention to Section 3.4.7f and suggested the Commission members address topics in order. Section 1 – Height, Setback, Width Mr. Bello commented on the horizontal metal material under the glass on the Frozen Food side of the building and stated it addressed Mr. Hogestad’s concerns about height. Mr. Murray stated that he didn’t see how the height lines up and asked how the corner references the height of the Frozen Food building. Chair Dunn said that the horizontal elements are more related to 3.4.7f(2). She commented she doesn’t see the reference to the height of the Frozen Food building and said there is still a very abrupt step in height. She pointed out the step back on the Bohemian building as an example. Mr. Hosanna said he doesn’t have the flexibility in the floorplan to accommodate a stepback. He commented that he is having difficulty figuring out how to navigate the height issue and stated the interior layout is driving the exterior design. Mr. Bello asked if the balconies are required. Mr. Hosanna replied they are necessary for the target clientele. Mr. Bello suggested a possible solution regarding the balconies to relate to the height and width of the Frozen Food building. Ms. Dorn commented that it is difficult to make the horizontal band under the windows relate to the Frozen Food building at its height and location. 1.a Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: LPC May 16, 2018 Minutes - DRAFT (6893 : MINUTES OF MAY 16, 2018) DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 5 May 16, 2018 Chair Dunn stated Commission members are struggling with the height and width of the east side and requested input on the north elevation. Ms. Dorn asked about the large vertical element on the north side. Mr. Hosanna replied it started as a downspout to feed the planter box below and has since become a design feature. Ms. Dorn commented it could possibly emphasize the height of the corner. Section 2 – Window Patterns, Primary Entrance, etc. Mr. Murray commented on the importance of not overwhelming the view into historic downtown and stated the fourth story causes issues with that aspect. He noted Mr. Hogestad had suggested making the building corner a statement. Mr. Hosanna replied corners can be overdone and stated this corner is a statement for this time period. Chair Dunn commented on the corners of the Bohemian building, the Northern Hotel, and other buildings which have corners that read as entrances but do not actually function as entries. Ms. Dorn asked about the window pattern matching that of the Frozen Food building. Mr. Hosanna replied the proposed building uses part of the patterning, but in a subtler way. Ms. Dorn asked if the height and width of the windows match. Ms. Hosanna replied they are quite close. Ms. Dorn suggested possibly incorporating them in an aligning manner. Mr. Hosanna replied the widths do not match and it would be difficult to align them due to floor heights. Chair Dunn appreciated the glass block elements. Ms. Gensmer asked if the glass block bands are also offset. Mr. Hosanna replied they are closer to the same height as the Frozen Food building. Chair Dunn suggested that may be a good way to keep the horizontal line connection. Section 3 – Material Distribution Mr. Bello asked if Mr. Hosanna considered using any white material to reference the Frozen Food building. Mr. Hosanna replied in the negative and asked if a white canopy would help. He stated there is more reference to the house next door. Mr. Murray commented on the size of the material and stated the flatter surface of the rainscreen references the Frozen Food building. Ms. Dorn asked about material samples. Mr. Hosanna described the materials and stated he would bring samples at the next review. Chair Dunn commented the materials used on the Frozen Food building are unique to this part of town, and replicating them may not necessarily be desirable. Ms. Bzdek explained the material distribution is based on all surrounding buildings and the Code allows for a variety of materials. Chair Dunn and Mr. Bello wondered whether they can specify that because the Frozen Foods building is so unique, they can disregard it in their evaluation of the distribution of materials. Chair Dunn requested staff examine the appropriate language prior to the next meeting. Section 4 – Visual and Pedestrian Connections, etc. No specific comments were offered on this section. Section 5 – Landscaping, etc. Mr. Hosanna stated the only landscaping is the existing trees. General Commission Comments and Questions Ms. Dorn asked about the dimensions of the rain screen panel. Mr. Hosanna replied it is 18 by 6 feet. Chair Dunn stated the Commission members are still struggling with building height and width. She asked how the members feel about the windows. Mr. Murray replied the windows work proportionally with the Frozen Food building. Ms. Dorn stated it would be interesting to see the windows referencing the Frozen Food building on the 2nd floor. 1.a Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: LPC May 16, 2018 Minutes - DRAFT (6893 : MINUTES OF MAY 16, 2018) DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 6 May 16, 2018 Mr. Hosanna asked if the design must reference the Frozen Food building or if other buildings in the area of adjacency can be considered. Mr. Murray replied the building next door requires more emphasis. Mr. Hosanna stated he will look at window changes. He stated he will not be able to attend the next meeting and will send a colleague. He requested input from Commission members as to how close they feel the design is to being acceptable. Ms. Gensmer stated she remains concerned about the building height and mass. Mr. Bello stated the changes discussed should help and he is struggling with the requirement to reference the Frozen Food building. Ms. Dorn stated the change in height is going to be a challenge. Mr. Murray stated he is not as worried about the corner, and stated the panels copy the stucco more than anything else could. He stated the height and width can be addressed proportionally, and this does that. He added he would like to see the fourth story step back, although he realizes that is not viable. Chair Dunn stated she is in support of the materials; however, she expressed concern this building does not defer to the historic building next door. Ms. Simpson returned to the meeting. 7. P.D.P. #180003 OASIS ON OLIVE, 310 WEST OLIVE STREET FINAL DESIGN REVIEW & REQUEST FOR RECOMMENDATION TO DECISION MAKER PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a proposal to construct a three-story, seven-unit multi-family building between Howes Street and Canyon Avenue. The project is adjacent to several designated and individually eligible buildings. The development proposal will be subject to Planning and Zoning Board (Type II) review. APPLICANT: Steve Slezak, Oasis Development Staff Report Ms. McWilliams presented the staff report, including a project summary, an explanation of the role of the Commission, and a review of the area of adjacency. She explained staff’s findings and rationale to support recommending approval. Applicant Presentation Mr. Slezak addressed concerns from his previous appearance before the Commission, including the standoff entry feature, the vertical windows and arch over the garage door. He stated the arch remains in the design and discussed the window pattern. Mr. Slezak discussed the landscape plan, focusing on relocating the rose garden, and his intention to retain most of the shrubs. He stated the design emphasizes outdoor space and gardens. Mr. Slezak shared material samples with the Commission members, explaining why various materials were chosen. Regarding the entry feature, Mr. Slezak provided various options and briefly discussed them. He stated his preference is to use brick and stucco rather than metal. Public Input None. Commission Questions and Discussion Chair Dunn directed the Commission’s attention to Section 3.4.7f and suggested the Commission members address topics in order. Section 1 – Height, Setback, Width Mr. Murray suggested focusing on new information. Chair Dunn stated the massing has been deemed acceptable. Ms. Simpson expressed concern about the height difference between this building and 316 West Olive. Chair Dunn noted a lot of the building is stepped back. Ms. Dorn commented something needs to be done with the void on the first level on the west elevation to create some correlations with the height of the building to the west. 1.a Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: LPC May 16, 2018 Minutes - DRAFT (6893 : MINUTES OF MAY 16, 2018) DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 7 May 16, 2018 Ms. Dorn asked why it is necessary to see into the parking structure. Mr. Slezak replied that is necessary for ventilation. Ms. McWilliams pointed out there is a screen mesh on the parking structure openings. Mr. Murray asked about the small parking garage on the south side of the building. Mr. Slezak replied it is a single-car garage. Mr. Murray stated the building provides a good transition to the Cortina building. Section 2 – Window Patterns, Primary Entrance, etc. Ms. Simpson asked if the elevation of the fascia could be brought down to line up. Mr. Slezak replied that is a reasonable comment; however, he questioned why it was important. Commission members discussed the fascia and roof lines. Mr. Slezak said the architect placed a lot of importance on horizontal lines and explained the thinking behind how the fascia is lined up with the flat roofs. Ms. Simpson suggested including a horizontal element to reference the neighboring building. Chair Dunn stated the garage and step backs reference the smaller building. Ms. Gensmer agreed, adding the upper level porch also helps. Chair Dunn stated she liked the original design of the entry. City Planner Pete Wray discussed the entry and stated staff has recommended making it wider to accommodate two pedestrians. Ms. Simpson agreed with Chair Dunn on the entry design. Ms. Dorn asked if the Code requires the entry to be incorporated into the building or if it can be used as a feature. Ms. McWilliams stated the Code addresses entries in Section 3.4.7 and elsewhere. Mr. Murray stated he prefers having the door or entry visible from the street or sidewalk. Chair Dunn noted there is no single primary entrance for all units. Mr. Wray discussed the Code requirements for an entry and connecting walkway. Mr. Murray asked if placing a door in the front of the tower has been considered. Mr. Slezak replied in the negative. Ms. Simpson asked if the door into the stairway is on the west or north side of the tower. Mr. Slezak replied it is on the west side of the tower. Commission members discussed various aspects of the entry. Chair Dunn asked if the entrance must be a door. Mr. Yatabe replied the Code has a definition for principal entrance; however, that specific definition is not applicable to 3.4.7. He stated it is up to the Commission to interpret this. Ms. Simpson stated one main entrance into the site would cover all the apartments. Chair Dunn and Ms. Gensmer agreed. Ms. Dorn stated she believes an entrance needs to be integrated into the building form itself. Section 3 - Materials Ms. Dorn commended the use of local sandstone. Commission members agreed the materials are acceptable. Section 4 – Visual and Pedestrian Connections, etc. Chair Dunn stated one of the important visual connections is the relationship between the new building and the houses. She commended keeping the grass and rose gardens in maintaining the sense of history. Section 5 – Landscape, Focal Point Ms. Simpson asked about the current location of the rose gardens. Mr. Slezak replied they are currently on the south side of the stair tower. He stated the roses have sentimental value and all possible efforts will be made to save them; however, he cannot guarantee they will survive the relocation. 1.a Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: LPC May 16, 2018 Minutes - DRAFT (6893 : MINUTES OF MAY 16, 2018) DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 8 May 16, 2018 Ms. Simpson asked about the emphasis on the rain garden and expressed concern about the proposed location for the roses. She suggested reshaping the rain garden to allow the rose garden to be in the middle of the lawn. Mr. Slezak replied he does not want the rain garden; however, engineering requirements exist. Chair Dunn asked if the Commission can specify a preference for the historic rose garden over the rain garden. Ms. McWilliams replied the Commission could make that recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Board. Mr. Wray stated the storm drainage coordination for this site has been ongoing and the location of the rain garden, from a functional standpoint, is to catch all the different drain lines on site and from the building. He stated plantings can occur on the rain garden as long as water can filter through. Chair Dunn summarized the Commission members’ comments. Ms. Simpson stated she remains somewhat concerned about the height difference between this building and the building to the west; however, she understands others’ perspectives. Mr. Bello discussed various entrance options. Ms. Dorn stated she would like to see options to place the main building entrance on the south. Mr. Murray asked if that could be included as a suggestion to allow Mr. Slezak to move forward. Ms. Dorn expressed concern the Commission is being rushed. Chair Dunn stated her belief that the arch meets the main entrance requirement. Mr. Wray discussed the Code references and the exception related to multiple front façades. Mr. Bello agreed the arch works as an entryway. Ms. Simpson stated she would like to ensure the trellis continues on the walkway. Mr. Slezak replied it will do so. Mr. Bello asked if the project is receiving a variance for parking. Mr. Wray replied the project meets the minimum parking requirements as it is within the TOD overlay zone. Ms. McWilliams offered that staff or a small group of Commission members could be assigned to review changes. Mr. Murray discussed the items he would like to see addressed administratively, including visual alignment of horizontal lines at eye level, addressing the front entrance based on the discussion, and reviewing the rose garden location for adequate sunlight. Ms. Simpson asked if the original landmark document includes language about the rose garden. Ms. McWilliams replied she believes it does; however, it is not detailed. She stated staff would document the rose garden and any other important landscape features prior to work beginning. Chair Dunn asked what the Design Reviews Subcommittee should examine. Mr. Murray replied it should look at the primary entrance. Mr. Bello stated the entrance to the property needs to be identifiable and supported the arch. Ms. Dorn stated an option with an entrance to the building should be considered. Chair Dunn stated the subcommittee needs more direction. Mr. Yatable noted there is nothing in the Code that allows for a design subcommittee. Additionally, he discussed possible scheduling issues with the Planning and Zoning Board meeting. He stated the Commission could recommend approval with conditions. Commission Deliberation Mr. Bello moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to the Decision Maker approval of the Oasis on Olive project, P.D.P. #180003, finding it is in compliance with the standards contained in Land Use Code section 3.4.7 for the following reasons, so long as the conditions listed below are satisfied: • The project does not negatively impact the individual eligibility for designation of the historic properties in the defined area of adjacency, and therefore complies with 3.4.7 (A) Purpose, and (B) General Standard. 1.a Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: LPC May 16, 2018 Minutes - DRAFT (6893 : MINUTES OF MAY 16, 2018) DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 9 May 16, 2018 • The project design’s overall height, setback and width is compatible with the historic properties in the defined area of adjacency, and therefore, complies with 3.4.7(F)(1). The project’s massing strategy and use of similar materials and roof forms mitigate the negative impact on directly adjacent historic resources. • The project complies with 3.4.7(F)(2) through the use of gable and intersecting gable roof forms and similar roof pitches to the historic resources. Additionally, the projecting garage on Olive Street is similar in shape to the 316 West Olive building. • The project design includes primary building materials reflective of the dominant historic materials, and therefore complies with 3.4.7(F)(3). • The focal and pedestrian points between the PDP gardens and the historic lots will be maintained, and no fencing is proposed between this lot and the rear lots of 227 and 231 South Howes which this lot was historically associated with. This significantly helps to retain and promote the historic buildings’ setting and association, and so complies with 3.4.7(F)(4). • The purposeful omission of fencing between the new and historic lots significantly helps to retain and promote the historic buildings’ setting and association with the historic rose gardens. To the extent possible the historic rose beds and gardens will remain. Replacement trees will be approved according to the requirements of the City Forester. For these reasons, the project complies with 3.4.7(F)(5). Conditions that need to be satisfied to meet LUC 3.4.7: 1) Provide an identifiable entrance with a door into the building; if from a design standpoint that is not feasible, then the LPC would accept an identifiable entry into the site (3.4.7)(F)(2). 2) Horizontal elements such as the roofline facia should align across the building (3.4.7)(F)(2). 3) The rose garden should be relocated to a location where it will get adequate exposure to the sun so that the roses thrive; and the location should be in a place where it is a prominent feature of the site (3.4.7)(F)(5). 4) The current conditions and location of the historic rose garden will be documented before relocation (3.4.7)(F)(5). Ms. Dorn seconded. Chair Dunn stated she agrees with conditions 2 through 4, but is satisfied the arch already complies with the Code and therefore may not support the motion. Ms. Gensmer agreed with Chair Dunn but stated she would support the motion. Ms. Dorn supported the flexibility provided in condition 1. Mr. Murray stated the motion is a good compromise. Chair Dunn stated she supports the project but is conflicted regarding the motion. Ms. Simpson stated she will support the motion, and feels the arch does already meet the Code requirement. Mr. Murray stated he supports the wording of the motion. Chair Dunn stated she will not support the motion, as she does not agree with the first condition; however, she does support the project and its design. The motion passed 5-1, with Dunn dissenting. 1.a Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: LPC May 16, 2018 Minutes - DRAFT (6893 : MINUTES OF MAY 16, 2018) DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 10 May 16, 2018 • OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Bello asked about the criteria regarding adjacency and whether there is a priority for abutting buildings versus others. Chair Dunn replied the Code does not currently have a preference; however, the proposed Code changes are examining a possible distinction. Chair Dunn stated Historic Larimer County is having its annual member meeting Sunday at Wolverine Farm Letter Press and Public House. • ADJOURNMENT Chair Dunn adjourned the meeting at 9:40 p.m. Minutes prepared by Tara Lehman, Tripoint Data. Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on _________________. _______________________________________ Meg Dunn, Chair 1.a Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: LPC May 16, 2018 Minutes - DRAFT (6893 : MINUTES OF MAY 16, 2018) Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 1 STAFF REPORT June 20, 2018 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 247 LINDEN – CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW STAFF Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is seeking conceptual review comments from the Landmark Preservation Commission for the development of residential lofts at 247-249 Linden Street in the Old Town Historic District. The proposal includes modifications or replacement of all of the existing doors and windows on the façade and the second floor of the rear elevation within the existing openings, as well as new openings and garage doors on the first floor of the rear elevation on the alley. The project also includes a rooftop addition to create additional square footage for the two residential units associated with the project, and the removal of a portion of the masonry on the side elevations to install railing for the residential patios. APPLICANT/OWNER: David Kress, RB+B (architect); Tom Moore (owner) RECOMMENDATION: N/A (Conceptual Review) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND: The Old Town Historic District was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1978 and, with a smaller boundary that stops at Jefferson Street, it was designated as a local landmark district in 1979. Fort Collins Municipal Code Section 14-46, “Work requiring building permit,” requires that the applicant obtain a report of acceptability from the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) for proposed alterations to designated historic resources. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY: The building at 247-249 Linden Street was constructed circa 1880 and is a contributing property to the locally designated Old Town Historic District as well as the National Register Old Town Historic District. Early commercial occupants of the building included a gun shop, a novelty shop, and a coal, hay, and feed shop. The two-story rectangular brick structure has a flat roof and façade with many original features (including projecting ornamental brick pilasters, recessed window bays, stone lintels and sills, and an elaborate brick and pressed tin cornice) as well as modifications that began in the 1940s when the first-floor commercial space was initially occupied by Joe’s Auto Upholstery, owned by Joe Cienfuegos. It is likely that garage doors with new brick surround were installed at that time. In 2005, Mr. Cienfuegos received approval from the LPC to replicate the double entry doors to the second floor at 249 Linden based on the reconstructed doors at the abutting 251 Linden property (funded by the State Historic Fund). The original double entry doors at 249 Linden had been removed in the 1980s or later because they were in poor condition and had been replaced with the entry system that is still in place today, as Mr. Cienfuegos chose not to proceed with the restoration at that 2 Packet Pg. 14 Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 2 time. When Mr. Cienfuegos passed away in 2011, his son Richard carried on the business at the same location until the recent sale to the current owner. The auto upholstery business continues to operate under the same name but is now located at 310 Willow Street. PROPOSED ALTERATION: The applicant is requesting conceptual review comments for a proposal to modify or replace all of the existing doors and windows on the façade and the second floor of the rear elevation within the existing openings, as well as create new openings and garage doors on the rear elevation’s first floor, which faces the alley. The project also includes a rooftop addition with metal panel cladding that would create additional square footage for the two residential units associated with the project. The current design also includes removal of a portion of the masonry on the side elevations to install railing for the residential patios. REVIEW CRITERIA: Section 14-46 of the Municipal Code, “Work requiring building permit,” describes a two- phase review process for the Commission to consider applications for a report of acceptability. The conceptual review allows the Commission to identify problems and propose solutions prior to final review. If upon review of the proposed work, the Commission determines there is no significant impact on the landmark or landmark district involved, it may waive conceptual review and proceed to consideration of the proposed work for final review at the same meeting. Proposed changes to Fort Collins Landmarks are reviewed by the Landmark Preservation Commission under Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code, “Report of acceptability” for compliance with the following Standards: (1) The effect of the proposed work upon the general historical and/or architectural character of the landmark or landmark district; (2) The architectural style, arrangement, texture and materials of existing and proposed improvements, and their relation to the sites, structures and objects in the district; (3) The effects of the proposed work in creating, changing or destroying the exterior characteristics of the site, structure or object upon which such work is to be done; (4) The effect of the proposed work upon the protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of the landmark or landmark district; and (5) The extent to which the proposed work meets the standards of the city and the United States Secretary of the Interior then in effect for the preservation, reconstruction, restoration or rehabilitation of historic resources. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties Rehabilitation is defined as the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values. The revised standards document (2017) is available at <https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/treatment-guidelines-2017.pdf>. Reference the general standards appropriate for this proposed rehabilitation of the existing building as follows: • Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (75-155) For consideration of the proposed third-story addition, the relevant standards are: • Overview of the basis for the standards related to new exterior additions and related new construction (26); • Standards for new exterior additions and related new construction (156-162). ATTACHMENTS 1. 247 Linden_conceptual design review_staff presentation (PDF) 2. Updated Linden Proposal 061918 (PDF) 2 Packet Pg. 15 1 247 Linden Conceptual Design Review Maren Bzdek, Senior Historic Preservation Planner Landmark Preservation Commission, June 20, 2018 2.a Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: 247 Linden_conceptual design review_staff presentation (6888 : 247 LINDEN – CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) 247 Linden Street 3 • c.1880 • 2-story brick commercial • Ornamental brick pilasters • Stone sills and lintels • Brick and pressed tin cornice 247 Linden Street 4 • 1929: Permit # 2515, “Double doors for garage in front of building” (W.E. Hurdle) • 1930s: Hawley’s Auto Top Shop • Late 1940s-2016: Joe’s Auto Upholstery • 1968: Permit # 12786 for 3’ x 5’ sign above door 2.a Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: 247 Linden_conceptual design review_staff presentation (6888 : 247 LINDEN – CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) 5 c. 1884 c.1900 6 2.a Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: 247 Linden_conceptual design review_staff presentation (6888 : 247 LINDEN – CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) 1914 7 1927 8 2.a Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: 247 Linden_conceptual design review_staff presentation (6888 : 247 LINDEN – CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) Joe Cienfuegos, 253 Linden c. 1940 9 1976,1979 10 2.a Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: 247 Linden_conceptual design review_staff presentation (6888 : 247 LINDEN – CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) 1983, 1986 11 12 2.a Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: 247 Linden_conceptual design review_staff presentation (6888 : 247 LINDEN – CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) 13 14 2.a Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: 247 Linden_conceptual design review_staff presentation (6888 : 247 LINDEN – CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) 15 16 2.a Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: 247 Linden_conceptual design review_staff presentation (6888 : 247 LINDEN – CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) 17 18 2.a Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: 247 Linden_conceptual design review_staff presentation (6888 : 247 LINDEN – CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) LPC Role Conceptual review: opportunity to identify any concerns regarding requirements, standards, design issues and policies that apply to designated landmarks. 19 Requests for Additional Information • Provide square footage and dimensions of existing building and proposed addition • Address and describe any structural work that would be required to handle the load of the addition • Provide what is known about the integrity of the existing walls • Does the property owner plan to apply for state or federal tax credits to support the proposed work? 20 2.a Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: 247 Linden_conceptual design review_staff presentation (6888 : 247 LINDEN – CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) 21 247 Linden Conceptual Design Review Maren Bzdek, Senior Historic Preservation Planner Landmark Preservation Commission, June 20, 2018 2.a Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: 247 Linden_conceptual design review_staff presentation (6888 : 247 LINDEN – CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL LINDEN LOFTS in association with JUNE 2018 2.b Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: Updated Linden Proposal 061918 (6888 : 247 LINDEN – CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) rbbarchitects.com Project Goals Respect, restore and enhance the historical integrity of the building with a sensitive addition. Create a design that honors without dominating the existing historical structure. Expand the residential base of the area by providing spaces for new living opportunities. Contents Project Summary 1 Structural Summary 2 Site Plan 3 South Elevation - Cement Board 4 South Elevation - Brick 5 North Elevation - Cement Board 6 North Elevation - Brick 7 West Elevation - Cement Board 8 West Elevation - Brick 9 Floor Plans 10 Perspective View - Linden Street 11 Perspective View - Firehouse Alley 12 Perspective View - Walnut/Linden Intersection 13 Perspective View and Sight Line Section 14 2.b Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: Updated Linden Proposal 061918 (6888 : 247 LINDEN – CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) rbbarchitects.com Project Summary This project proposes to both preserve and revitalize the building located at 246 Linden Street. The current building has been vacated by Joes Auto Upholstery on the main level and two non-conforming residential units on the upper level. The conceptual intent is to promote historic use of main level retail and to renovate the upper level to two legitimate living units. This would include the addition of a third level set back from both the street elevation and alley elevation. Effort will be made to help preserve the existing, exposed elevations and make them structurally sound, secure, weather tight and more energy efficient. Currently the roof structure is failing in the vicinity of an existing skylight whose structural support does not appear to have been engineered. The existing upper level ceiling shows several signs of water damage from the roof. The entire structural roof plane will be replaced as part of the renovation and addition. Although it is likely that the second level was originally used as office space, this function would require accessibility upgrades that would prove to be detrimental to the existing functional layout of the main level. Adding a maximum of two living units on the second (and third) levels can be accomplished without adding elevator access from the Linden Street entry. The upper levels would be split front to back offering a two story unit facing Linden and a two story unit facing the alley. The upper (third) level would be the main living level with bedrooms being located on the mid or second level. Stepping back the third level would allow an outdoor patio off of the main living spaces in each unit. The patio on the Linden Street side would be set behind the existing parapet such that activity would be completely out of view from the street except that the design proposes an aperture in the sidewall to allow a small view toward the public plaza. The third level roof line is almost completely out of view from the sidewalk on the opposite side of Linden. The portion of the flat roofline that is visible above the Parapet is simplified in detail so as not to distract from the existing ornamental cornice. The patio on the alley side of the building is much more exposed, but railing details have been simplified. The third level sidewalls will be set just inside the parapet line so that the existing, stepped parapet and chimney elements, visible from rbbarchitects.com Structural Summary The following is a structural narrative for the anticipated renovation and addition of the 247 Linden Street project in Fort Collins, Colorado. EXISTING BUILDING CONDITIONS The existing building is comprised of three (3) wythe brick walls which are assumed to be supported by stone plank foundations. Steel plates bearing against the southwest brick wall and ties rods are visible near the roof elevation. This retrofit, sometimes referred to as star anchors, is common for brick buildings of this vintage. A concrete slab on grade is the first floor finish and is assumed to have been constructed many decades after the original construction of the building. The second level framing consists of 2” x 12” saw lumber joists at approximately 24” on center with traditional wood flooring. OSB floor sheathing has been used in locations to patch the original floor structure. Some of the existing floor joists show signs of minor structural failures. These failures are localized and are not wide spread throughout the building. However, a majority of the existing floor joists have deflected permanently with some deflections over 2-1/2” which is far more than recommended. Structural reinforcing will be required for the existing second level framing to address the structural failures, deflection, and meet building code requirements. The roof level framing consists of 2” x 12” saw lumber joists at approximately 24” on center with traditional wood roofing. A large skylight has been added sometime after the original construction with a majority of the framing around the skylight showing signs of significant structural failure. New structural framing for the skylight would be required in addition to structural reinforcing of the existing roof level framing to address the structural failures and meet building code requirements. PROPOSED STRUCTURAL FRAMING Wood framed structural reinforcing and steel framing will be required at the second level framing due to the condition of the existing framing. Reinforcing will consist of new wood joists being attached to each existing joist to provide additional strength and alleviate the current deflection issues. In addition to the wood reinforcing a line of steel beams and columns will be centered in the building to support the second level wood framing as well as framing above. The columns will be rbbarchitects.com Site Plan Linden Street Old Firehouse Alley Linden Lofts 247 & 248 2.b 3 Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: Updated Linden Proposal 061918 (6888 : 247 LINDEN – CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) rbbarchitects.com NEW GARAGE DOOR TO EMULATE EXISTING NEW CANOPY NEW STOREFRONT DOOR/SYSTEM TO REPLACE EXISTING REPAIR & PAINT EXISTING TIN DETAILS, TYP REPAIR EXISTING BRICK, AS NEEDED UPDATE & REPLACE EXISTING ENTRY DOOR/WINDOW SYSTEM REPLACE EXISTING WINDOWS W/ DOUBLE HUNG TO MATCH HISTORICAL DOUBLE HUNG CONFIGURATION, TYP REPAIR & PAINT EXISTING STONE DETAILS, TYP NEW UPPER LEVEL ADDITION, 18"x48" HORIZONTAL CEMENT BOARD NEW WINDOW & DOOR SYSTEMS, TYP NEW METAL ROOF FASCIA (DARK GRAY) South Elevation - Upper Level Addition Material: Cement Board 2.b 4 Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: Updated Linden Proposal 061918 (6888 : 247 LINDEN – CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) rbbarchitects.com NEW GARAGE DOOR TO EMULATE EXISTING NEW CANOPY NEW STOREFRONT DOOR/SYSTEM TO REPLACE EXISTING REPAIR & PAINT EXISTING TIN DETAILS, TYP REPAIR EXISTING BRICK, AS NEEDED UPDATE & REPLACE EXISTING ENTRY DOOR/WINDOW SYSTEM REPLACE EXISTING WINDOWS W/ DOUBLE HUNG TO MATCH HISTORICAL DOUBLE HUNG CONFIGURATION, TYP REPAIR & PAINT EXISTING STONE DETAILS, TYP NEW UPPER LEVEL ADDITION, BRICK NEW WINDOW & DOOR SYSTEMS, TYP NEW METAL ROOF FASCIA (DARK GRAY) South Elevation - Upper Level Addition Material: Brick 2.b 5 Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: Updated Linden Proposal 061918 (6888 : 247 LINDEN – CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) rbbarchitects.com NEW GARAGE DOOR REPAIR EXISTING STONE SILLS AS NEEDED, TYP REPAIR EXISTING STUCCO, AS NEEDED REPLACE EXISTING WINDOWS, TYP REPAIR & PAINT EXISTING WINDOW SURROUND, TYP NEW UPPER LEVEL ADDITION, 18"x48" HORIZONTAL CEMENT BOARD NEW WINDOW & DOOR SYSTEMS, TYP NEW METAL ROOF FASCIA (DARK GRAY) NEW RAILING NEW GARAGE DOOR North Elevation - Upper Level Addition Material: Cement Board 2.b 6 Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: Updated Linden Proposal 061918 (6888 : 247 LINDEN – CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) rbbarchitects.com NEW GARAGE DOOR REPAIR EXISTING STONE SILLS AS NEEDED, TYP REPAIR EXISTING STUCCO, AS NEEDED REPLACE EXISTING WINDOWS, TYP REPAIR & PAINT EXISTING WINDOW SURROUND, TYP NEW UPPER LEVEL ADDITION, BRICK NEW WINDOW & DOOR SYSTEMS, TYP NEW METAL ROOF FASCIA (DARK GRAY) NEW RAILING NEW GARAGE DOOR North Elevation - Upper Level Addition Material: Brick 2.b 7 Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: Updated Linden Proposal 061918 (6888 : 247 LINDEN – CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) rbbarchitects.com REPAIR & PAINT EXISTING BRICK NEW UPPER LEVEL ADDITION, 18"x48" HORIZONTAL CEMENT BOARD NEW METAL ROOF FASCIA (DARK GRAY) MINIMIZE HEIGHT OF NEW SIDEWALL VISIBLE FROM STREET MAINTAIN (E) PARAPET PROFILE OPTIONAL LIGHTER, NATURAL GREY METAL NEW PARAPET OPENING & RAILING West Elevation - Upper Level Addition Material: Cement Board 2.b 8 Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: Updated Linden Proposal 061918 (6888 : 247 LINDEN – CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) rbbarchitects.com REPAIR & PAINT EXISTING BRICK NEW UPPER LEVEL ADDITION, BRICK NEW METAL ROOF FASCIA (DARK GRAY) MINIMIZE HEIGHT OF NEW SIDEWALL VISIBLE FROM STREET MAINTAIN (E) PARAPET PROFILE OPTIONAL LIGHTER, NATURAL GREY METAL NEW PARAPET OPENING & RAILING West Elevation - Upper Level Addition Material: Brick 2.b 9 Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: Updated Linden Proposal 061918 (6888 : 247 LINDEN – CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) rbbarchitects.com BEAM ABOVE 3046 57 SF Storage 37 SF Entry Vestibule 730 SF Lower Level Tenate BEAM ABOVE 47 SF Apt B Storage 53 SF Apt A FOB ENTRY Storage ELEVATOR Apt B Elevator Apt A Elevator 45 SF Toilet Vestibule +36" COUNTER 3070 3068 3068 3068 3068 3068 3068 9090 Garage Door 9090 Garage Door 12' - 9 1/4" 12' - 9 1/4" 26' - 9" Shared Vestibule Tenant A Garage Tenant B Garage 28' - 4" 12' - 0" EQ EQ HOOKS Stairs Hall Hall 109 SF Entry B 125 SF Entry A 65 SF Bath 64 SF rbbarchitects.com Perspective View Linden Street Neighboring building returns to historic two-story mass Upper Level Addition: Cement Board Upper Level Addition: Brick 2.b 11 Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: Updated Linden Proposal 061918 (6888 : 247 LINDEN – CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) rbbarchitects.com Perspective View Firehouse Alley Neighboring building returns to historic two-story mass Upper Level Addition: Cement Board Upper Level Addition: Brick 2.b 12 Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: Updated Linden Proposal 061918 (6888 : 247 LINDEN – CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) rbbarchitects.com Perspective View Walnut/Linden Intersection 2.b 13 Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: Updated Linden Proposal 061918 (6888 : 247 LINDEN – CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) rbbarchitects.com Perspective View Linden Street Sight Line Section 2.b 14 Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: Updated Linden Proposal 061918 (6888 : 247 LINDEN – CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) Item 2, Exhibit 1 1983 Facade Drawing Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 42-1 Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY June 20, 2018 Landmark Preservation Commission STAFF Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Planner SUBJECT Sign Code Update: Restoration of Historic Signs EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to request a recommendation from the Landmark Preservation Commission to City Council regarding a code change that would revise the process for review of sign permit applications related to historic signs. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The revised sign code will update the process for historic sign code review. The CDNS Director and the Landmark Preservation Commission Chair may review applications or refer them to the Landmark Preservation Commission for review. The applications will be for sign permits to restore historic signs on buildings in the Downtown Zone District that might not otherwise comply with the provisions of the sign code. Applications would be reviewed based on the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code, and any adopted design standards for locally designated properties in Fort Collins. Applications for the restoration or rehabilitation of a historic sign would require documentary evidence of appearance and location on the building in order to be considered for historic review. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Sign Code 3 Packet Pg. 43 DRAFT SIGN CODE (Legal Review Pending) CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Page 1 3.8.7.2 (I) Restoration of Historic Signs. The provisions of this subsection apply to buildings in the Downtown sign district that are 50 years old or older, whether or not they are formally recognized as historic at the local, state, or national level, or whether they are located within a designated historic district. (1) An owner of a building within the Downtown sign district may apply for a sign permit to restore or replace a historic sign that may not otherwise comply with the strict provisions of this Sign Code. Restorations or replacements that comply with the strict provisions of this Sign Code are not processed as historic signs. (2) In addition to other required application materials, the applicant shall provide evidence of the historic signage on the property during its period of significance (if applicable), or during the period within 20 years after its original construction. (3) Upon determination that the application is complete (in a reasonable amount of time after receipt of application), the application shall be forwarded to the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services (CDNS) and Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) Chair for consideration. The Director and LPC Chair may refer consideration to the LPC, which shall not be more than 45 days after the date of referral. (4) After consideration of the application and appropriate supporting evidence: (a) If the decision maker finds that the proposed sign is comparable to the design, placement, area, quality, and character of the original sign, then the decision maker may approve the sign, and it shall be counted towards the sign area allowance. The decision maker may condition such approval on such modifications as are necessary to achieve comparability, but shall not condition such approval on changes in content. (b) If the decision maker finds that the proposed sign is a replica or restoration of the original sign, including materials (which may include modern materials that are appropriate for historic restorations), design, colors, and content, then the decision maker may approve the sign, and it shall not be counted towards the sign area allowance. (c) If the decision maker finds that the proposed sign is not comparable to the design, placement, area, quality, or character of the original sign, then the decision maker shall deny the application and provide the applicants written reasons therefor within seven days after the denial. 3.a Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: Draft Sign Code (6918 : Sign Code Update: Restoration of Historic Signs) Sign Code Update, Phase 2 Noah Beals Senior City Planner - Zoning Background 2 Item 3, Exhibit 1 Staff Presentation - Beals Packet Pg. 45 Sign Code Update, Phase 2 3 1. Improve the overall legibility of the Sign Code Section 2. Implement action items for the adopted Downtown Plan 3. Discuss sign standards for new technology 4. Provide an option for consideration of Digital Billboards Background 4 Item 3, Exhibit 1 Staff Presentation - Beals Packet Pg. 46 Types of Signs 5 Restoration or Replication of Signs 6 What this proposed sign section does not do? • It does not replace the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and any relevant provisions in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code • It does not apply to the entire city, only the Downtown district. Item 3, Exhibit 1 Staff Presentation - Beals Packet Pg. 47 Restoration or Replication of Signs 7 What does the Code Update include? Allowance As approved by the CDNS Director and LPC Chair Max Size As determined by the historic research of the property and Decision Maker Max Height As determined by the historic research of the property and Decision Maker Other Standards An applicant of a building with the Downtown sign district map apply for a sign permit to restore or replicate a sign that may not otherwise comply with the district provisions of the Sign Code. Restored or replicated signs that comply with the standards of the this Sign Code are not processed through this section Applicant shall provide evidence of the previously existing sign on the property during and (if applicable) information on its period of significance. Restoration or Replication of Signs 8 3.8.7.2 (I) Restoration of Historic Signs. The provisions of this subsection apply to buildings in the Downtown sign district that are 50 years old or older, whether or not they are formally recognized as historic at the local, state, or national level, or whether they are located within a designated historic district. (1) An owner of a building within the Downtown sign district may apply for a sign permit to restore or replace a historic sign that may not otherwise comply with the strict provisions of this Sign Code. Restorations or replacements that comply with the strict provisions of this Sign Code are not processed as historic signs. (2) In addition to other required application materials, the applicant shall provide evidence of the historic signage on the property during its period of significance (if applicable), or during the period within 20 years after its original construction. (3) Upon determination that the application is complete (in a reasonable amount of time after receipt of application), the application shall be forwarded to the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services (CDNS) and Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) Chair for consideration. The Director and LPC Chair may refer consideration to the LPC, which shall not be more than 45 days after the date of referral. (4) After consideration of the application and appropriate supporting evidence: (a) If the decision maker finds that the proposed sign is comparable to the design, placement, area, quality, and character of the original sign, then the decision maker may approve the sign, and it shall be counted towards the sign area allowance. The decision maker may condition such approval on such modifications as are necessary to achieve comparability, but shall not condition such approval on changes in content. (b) If the decision maker finds that the proposed sign is a replica or restoration of the original sign, including materials (which may include modern materials that are appropriate for historic restorations), design, colors, and content, then the decision maker may approve the sign, and it shall not be counted towards the sign area allowance. (c) If the decision maker finds that the proposed sign is not comparable to the design, placement, area, quality, or character of the original sign, then the decision maker shall deny the application and provide the applicants written reasons therefor within seven days after the denial. Item 3, Exhibit 1 Staff Presentation - Beals Packet Pg. 48 Sign Code Update, Phase 2 9 Thank You Item 3, Exhibit 1 Staff Presentation - Beals Packet Pg. 49 Bath 43 SF Closet 44 SF Closet 154 SF Bedroom 151 SF Bedroom 34 SF Closet 65 SF Bath 61 SF Bath 32 SF Closet 151 SF Bedroom 151 SF Bedroom Vest Apt B Elevator Apt A Elevator 3068 3068 3070 2668 2668 2468 Pocket 2668 3070 2668 Pocket 2668 Pocket 2668 2668 2668 2668 Pocket 2668 Pocket 2668 Pocket 2668 Pocket 4070 Barn Door 4070 Barn Door 36"x48" Shower 36"x48" Shower 36"x48" Shower 36"x52" Shower +36" COUNTER +36" COUNTER +36" COUNTER +42" COUNTER 114'-8" 114'-8" 116'-2" Shared Vestibule +36" COUNTER 12' - 0" 12' - 11 1/4" 12' - 8 1/4" +42" COUNTER Shared Mech HOOKS Stairs 116'-2" STORAGE PANTRY REF Hall Stair Landing 221 SF Living Room 177 SF Kitchen 91 SF Dining Room 230 SF Front Patio 180 SF Rear Patio 30 SF Powder 27 SF Apt B Elevator 25 SF Apt A Elevator 3068 3068 2468 10070 3016 Awning 3016 Awning 3050 Fixed 3050 Fixed 3016 Awning 3050 Fixed 3050 Fixed 3016 Awning 3' - 6" 3' - 6" 6' - 6" 3' - 6" 10070 3016 Awning 3016 Awning 3050 Fixed 3050 Fixed 3016 Awning 3050 Fixed 3050 Fixed 3016 Awning 9' - 0" 28' - 4" 31' - 11 1/2" 7' - 0" STORAGE PANTRY REF 171 SF Kitchen 3' - 6" 3' - 6" 3' - 9" 7' - 6" Powder Hall 2468 28' - 4" 25' - 10" 10' - 0 1/2" 231 SF Living Room Stair Landing 116 SF Dining Room Floor Plans Third Level Second Level Main Level 78’-3” 2.b 10 Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: Updated Linden Proposal 061918 (6888 : 247 LINDEN – CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) supported by shallow concrete foundations at the main level. The new third level framing will consist of wood framing which will be supported by steel beams and new wood walls. The steel beams will align with the steel framing at the second level and will be supported by columns a part of said frame. New wood walls will be constructed adjacent to the existing brick walls to provide support for the third level framing and roof framing above. The wood walls and floor framing will be attached to the existing brick walls to maintain the structural integrity of the walls. New wood walls will be continuous through all levels and will be supported by shallow concrete foundations at the main level. Penthouse roof framing will be constructed with wood roof joists spanning to the new wood walls adjacent to the brick walls. Lateral framing of the southeast and northwest walls will consist of steel moment frames from the roof level and supported by shallow concrete foundations at the main level. Light weight façade components of the penthouse would provide a means for a more structurally effiecient building and more cost effective build. A masonry façade will not detract from the overall structural integrity but it will not enhance the structural integrity either. Construction of a masonry façade will be difficult as the contractor will be working directly adjacent and above neighboring buildings. Regards, Nick Decker, PE Director – Fort Collins Office Raker Rhodes Engineering, LLC 2.b 2 Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: Updated Linden Proposal 061918 (6888 : 247 LINDEN – CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) Linden to the south, are fully expressed without interruption. The new third level mass will be sided in simply detailed metal panels in a lighter silver/grey color to set the addition apart from the existing building and not compete with it. Upper level windows that have been replaced overt time and that are not historically significant will be replaced with new windows that retain the conceptual character of the original windows. Existing windows that are still functional will be renovated to extend their life. An attempt will be made to restore window trim to original profiles. A main level garage door and its masonry aperture is not original but may have become historically significant over time. The intent would be to reconstruct it to include more glass infill panels in an effort to make a retail space more viable. Otherwise it may be replaced by a storefront system that reflects the same panel layout. Note that the neighboring building reflects the original display window and retail entry design. The main level retail entry door is also in a modified masonry aperture. The intent would be to rebuild this door and window system within the current masonry opening. The main level access door to the stairway leading to the upper level would be replaced with a single leaf, secure door and transom window that maintains the characteristics of the original door and transom design. The main level elevation at the alley would be modified to include two single car garage doors, one for use by each upper level tenant. It is not believed that this aperture was original. The existing metal cornice will be renovated to be structurally sound with major holes patched. The following pages contain graphic representations of the project intent. 2.b 1 Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: Updated Linden Proposal 061918 (6888 : 247 LINDEN – CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW)