Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 03/08/2017City of Fort Collins Page 1 March 8, 2017 Meg Dunn, Chair City Council Chambers Per Hogestad, Vice Chair City Hall West Doug Ernest 300 Laporte Avenue Bud Frick Fort Collins, Colorado Kristin Gensmer Dave Lingle Mollie Simpson Alexandra Wallace 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. Video of the meeting will be available for later viewing on demand here: http://www.fcgov.com/fctv/video-archive.php. Special Meeting March 8, 2017 Minutes • CALL TO ORDER Chair Dunn called the meeting to order at 5:33 p.m. • ROLL CALL PRESENT: Dunn, Zink, Hogestad, Wallace, Gensmer, Lingle, Ernest, Frick, Simpson STAFF: McWilliams, Bzdek, Bumgarner, Yatabe, Schiager • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA No members of the public were present. • DISCUSSION AGENDA 1. DISCUSSION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE Staff Report Ms. McWilliams presented the staff report, including the background of the Design Review Subcommittee. She explained the approach Staff is recommending, and discussed some of the Landmark Preservation Commission City of Fort Collins Page 2 March 8, 2017 benefits of utilizing such a subcommittee, both to the Commission and to the public. She requested the Commission’s direction on whether they would like to reinstate a formal subcommittee, and if so, how they would like it to be structured. Public Input No members of the public were present. Commission Questions and Discussion Mr. Frick asked why a member of the subcommittee who reviewed a particular project should have to recuse themselves from further action on that project. Mr. Yatabe explained the code regarding the subcommittee, adding that accommodating a subcommittee was part of the reason for expanding the LPC to nine members. Chair Dunn asked whether the Commission members could listen to the recordings of the subcommittees. Mr. Yatabe explained that hearing the input of the subcommittee members via the recording would like having them provide testimony, which would not be a full recusal from the process. Mr. Ernest asked how the Commission would understand the decision making process of the subcommittee. Mr. Yatabe explained that the Commission would not get a recommendation from the subcommittee, and the Applicant is not obligated to take the advice it received from the subcommittee. The Commission and Ms. McWilliams discussed the criteria to determine whether a project would go to the Design Review Subcommittee (DRS) or the full Commission. Single family residential projects, which are primarily additions and alterations, were identified as appropriate for DRS. Smaller individual properties, non-controversial projects and minor amendments were also discussed as being suitable for the DRS. Development Reviews would continue to go to the full Landmark Preservation Commission, as well as the majority of commercial and multi-family projects. It was also pointed out that the DRS would always have the option of referring a project that came to them to the full LPC, if they felt it were appropriate. The Commission requested that Staff provide a flow-chart or other documentation that would clearly identify the criteria for each of the two paths through the system (DRS vs. LPC). They also inquired as to the volume of projects that were likely to follow each path. Members discussed the options for forming the subcommittee. Ms. McWilliams proposed that those who were interested and willing to serve would volunteer for the subcommittee for a set period of time, possibly a year. From that pool of subcommittee members, Staff would gather appropriate participants for each meeting, depending on the particular project and type of expertise needed for the review. Members asked how the DRS would work. Ms. McWilliams stated that the DRS used to meet in the afternoon before regular LPC meetings, and Staff would schedule up to three projects per meeting. If there were no projects to be reviewed in a particular meeting, they would not meet. Ms. McWilliams said the DRS had been well-received and appreciated by those who used it. A few members were curious about who would be willing to volunteer, expressing some concern that if there weren’t a big enough pool, including a sufficient number of design professionals, it would not make sense to reinstate the DRS. Mr. Ernest and Mr. Hogestad said they were willing, as did Mr. Frick, although he expressed lingering reservations about the recusal aspect. Members asked whether the staff report could include some kind of summary of how DRS decisions about a project were made. There was a suggestion that seeing the original design and its evolution after going to the DRS could be helpful. Mr. Yatabe stated that while he would have to do more research, a summary or before and after designs might be a possibility. Chair Dunn asked for an example of a commercial project next to a historic property that wouldn’t come to the LPC. Ms. McWilliams said the Feeder Supply had a previously approved design that came back with a minor amendment and went through the DRS. Timeliness was a factor in the decision to go to the DRS, as construction was already underway. Ms. McWilliams also gave the example of the Linden Hotel putting a small addition on the third floor away from a main façade.