Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 09/14/2016City of Fort Collins Page 1 September 14, 2016 Ron Sladek, Chair Doug Ernest, Vice 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 September 14, 2016 Minutes  CALL TO ORDER Chair Sladek called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m.  ROLL CALL PRESENT: Dunn, Hogestad, Lingle, Ernest, Frick, Sladek ABSENT: Zink, Wallace, Gensmer 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 September 14, 2016  CONSENT AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 24, 2016 REGULAR MEETING. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the August 24, 2016 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. 2. 325 GARFIELD STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a proposal to alter the house located at 325 Garfield Street with a 2-story addition. The property was determined to be individually eligible as a Fort Collins Landmark. APPLICANT/OWNER: William Gascoigne, 325 Garfield Street Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the Consent Agenda as presented on the agenda for the regular meeting of September 14, 2016 as presented. Mr. Lingle seconded. The motion passed 6:0.  DISCUSSION AGENDA 3. 419 MATHEWS - APPLICATION FOR FORT COLLINS LANDMARK DESIGNATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a recommendation to City Council regarding landmark designation for The H. W. Schroeder Property, a 1901 Queen Anne-style residence and newer detached garage at 419 Mathews Street. APPLICANT: Carol Johnson Trust and John McGowan Trust Staff Report Ms. Bumgarner presented the staff report, including background of the property, its qualifications for designation, and the role of the Commission. Applicant Presentation None. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion Chair Sladek complimented Ms. Bumgarner on the nomination. Mr. Ernest agreed, adding that he particularly appreciated the details on integrity. Commission Deliberation Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend that City Council designate the H.W. Schroeder Property at 419 Mathews Street as a Fort Collins Landmark in accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 14, based on the property’s significance under Standard B for its association with builder H. W. Schroeder and Standard C as an excellent example of a Queen Anne-style residence and its exterior integrity based on all seven aspects of integrity. Ms. Dunn seconded. The motion passed 6:0. 4. JEFFERSON AND LINDEN - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for conceptual comments on a proposed design for a restaurant at the northwest corner of Jefferson Street and Linden Street. The proposed building consists of a single story building of 5,500 square feet with a patio on a site within the River District and the Old Town Fort Collins National Register Historic District. APPLICANT: Chris Aronson, Vaught Frye Larson Architects City of Fort Collins Page 3 September 14, 2016 Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report, including background on the property, recommendations for the area of adjacency, information about the proposed design, and an overview of the review criteria. Applicant Presentation Mr. Aronson gave the Applicant presentation. He introduced Christine Houdek and Ty Fulcher, members of the ownership group, and another architect, Bo Evans. He reviewed the highlights of the presentation included in the packet and showed slides of the site and area buildings. He stated that one of the goals for the project is to activate the street corner with a lively outdoor patio space. Bands of three windows have been used to break up the façade and existing trees have been evaluated and landscaping has been planned. Mr. Aronson discussed the materials they intend to use for the building and compared its size to other buildings nearby. Public Input None. Commission Questions and Discussion Mr. Lingle requested additional information regarding the typologies of the selected building form. Mr. Aronson replied by explaining the inspiration for the design choices and stated the overall design is basically a manipulation of the metal building typology. Mr. Hogestad commended the building design as being creative and attractive; however, he questioned whether it truly fits into the district and expressed concern regarding the use of all metal materials. He asked if some masonry or richer materials were considered. Mr. Aronson replied brick was considered; however, it made the brick look fake so color and texture were used to break up the façade. Mr. Hogestad suggested the brick did not function well because the building appears to be an obviously pre-fabricated metal building. He asked if they had considered changing the roof pitch and noted this building will be near some of the most historic buildings in the area. Mr. Aronson replied the roof lines were examined; however, some of the alternatives did not play well with the relationship with the Rodizio building. He discussed the corner element of the building and the creation of the transition between the industrial River District and Downtown. Mr. Hogestad asked if there is a demand for the pre-fabricated building. Mr. Aronson replied the metal building construction type has been identified as the most cost effective option. Mr. Hogestad asked if a steeper sloped roof was considered. Mr. Aronson replied in the affirmative but stated they received comments that it looked like a lot of roof. Mr. Hogestad stated a more sloped roof was in keeping with other buildings in the area and suggested examining a richer material and possibly steeper roof. He expressed concern regarding the use of a pre-manufactured metal building on the corner given its relationship to historic buildings, adding that the building was an abrupt transition. Mr. Lingle reiterated some of Mr. Hogestad’s comments, agreeing that there was not enough transition. He noted the Commission is going to have to determine whether this project is compatible with historic buildings in the area of adjacency when the project comes back for a recommendation. He suggested the project needs a bit more cohesiveness with nearby historic structures. Chair Sladek suggested some acknowledgement of what was on the property originally and discussed the importance of making reference to the Union Pacific building and other historic structures directly across the street. Additionally, he noted the Code requires the dominant building material of existing historic structures adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the proposed structure shall be used as the primary material for new construction. Mr. Aronson replied there are so many different materials at play in the area and this project aims to provide a transition. He suggested this building being different can highlight the nearby masonry buildings. Chair Sladek encouraged the inclusion of a modern building on the site; however, he noted it must be compatible with the historic buildings and surroundings. Mr. Aronson questioned what the area of adjacency will be. Chair Sladek replied it is determined on a case-by-case basis. Ms. Bzdek and Staff can assist in refining a specific area of adjacency. City of Fort Collins Page 4 September 14, 2016 Mr. Hogestad stated he would like additional information regarding the historic metal buildings referenced by the Applicant and questioned whether such buildings exist. Chair Sladek suggested the Applicant look carefully at the wording of Land Use Code Section 3.4.7. He stated the glass wall facing east seems to be a focus and suggested the Jefferson street frontage should rise to the character of the site. Mr. Ernest discussed the staff report references to both the Old Town and River District guidelines. Ms. Dunn suggested Mr. Aronson look up the Tedman House previously located on the site. Mr. Aronson replied they have looked at it but noted the house was a different proportion, use and function for the property. Christine Houdek requested clarification regarding what part of the Tedman House design the Commission would like to be included. Ms. Dunn replied the building should have been included on the list of historic properties; however, she did not suggest emulating the structure. 5. OLIVE STREET APARTMENTS - CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is seeking conceptual comments on his proposal to construct a three-story multi-family building of approximately 7400 sq. ft. on the rear portions of the lots at 227 and 231 South Howes. The property at 231 South Howes is a Fort Collins Landmark, designated by Ordinance No. 191, 1998. The landmark property, historically known as the Humphrey/Davis House, contains an Italianate house, designated for both its architectural and historical significance, and a two bay shingle-clad garage, which is not part of the landmark designation. This garage is proposed to be demolished. APPLICANT: Stephen Slezak, This Old Howes, LLC, 561 S. York Street, Denver, CO Staff Report Ms. McWilliams presented the staff report, including a description of the proposed project, background information, a description of the property and its history, and an overview of the review criteria. Applicant Presentation Mr. Slezak gave a presentation discussing the plans for the property. He stated he owns several historic structures in the area and that this project is designed to provide a transition between the 6- story Cortina project and other structures on the block. He discussed the proposed parking situation and noted underground parking was not financially feasible for only 7 units. Proposed materials are stucco, brick and sandstone. Public Input None. Commission Questions and Discussion Ms. Dunn asked if the house next door on Olive is brick. Mr. Slezak replied in the affirmative. Ms. Dunn commended the inclusion of brick in the project design. She stated she is comfortable with the massing and scale of the project as well. Mr. Frick agreed the building is nice; however, he asked about the vertical light tower at the corner of the stairway seeming a bit post-modern in the midst of historic structures. He also questioned the eyebrow over the parking entrance. He suggested the garage height could be brought down to match the garage to the left. Mr. Slezak replied that could be examined; however, at Conceptual Review, the fire department expressed concern about a path of access. If that is not needed for access, the height could drop slightly. Chair Sladek stated he likes this design more than the previous proposal and disagreed with Mr. Frick about the window tower and garage entrance. He referred back to the Code, noting the possibility that the integrity of the two historic buildings could be damaged by changing their backyard settings. Mr. Slezak discussed the history of the subdivision of the lots. City of Fort Collins Page 5 September 14, 2016 Mr. Lingle asked about the previous conceptual design during which many of the comments seemed to address the impacts on 316 West Olive. Ms. McWilliams replied this hearing only addresses a conceptual design review for an historic building; therefore, 231 South Howes is the only building under consideration at this point. Mr. Lingle stated the design is quite compact and has a minimal impact as viewed from Olive. Mr. Hogestad questioned several elements of the design, including floating panels, the eyebrow over the garage entrance, long slot windows, corner windows, and other elements., including the large monument piece with the 312 on it. He stated the design needs to be reined in without losing the nice articulation of the entire space. He suggested the post-modern elements be eliminated but stated the building does seem to fit comfortably in the space. Mr. Frick stated he would like to see renditions of the project from Olive looking back at it and expressed concern it would be a flat wall looming above two one-story buildings. Ms. Dunn stated she likes the large 312 piece which gives a sense of a front door. Mr. Hogestad argued the element does not help the building from an historic standpoint. Ms. Dunn asked if there is lawn between the 312 entrance piece and the garage. Mr. Slezak replied it is a patio area. Ms. Dunn asked if the building is on stilts on the west side. Mr. Slezak replied in the affirmative and stated there is a unit on the main floor. Ms. Dunn asked about the drive-through section next to the house on Olive. Mr. Hogestad agreed the stilts do not make the building feel grounded, as most historic buildings do. He suggested exploring some type of screening. Mr. Lingle stated he does not have a problem with the design as proposed but noted screening will be required per the Land Use Code. Additionally, Mr. Lingle supported the 312 entrance element. Chair Sladek noted the Commission needs to consider the essential question of review criteria and what the effect of the building might be on the landmark status of the adjacent building, and not try to redesign the building. Mr. Hogestad argued details are always important and stated many of the building’s windows have no bearing on historic context. He stated the mass and bulk of the building does fit the context; however, the pattern and stylistic elements of the building will make or break the project. Ms. Dunn stated the mass and scale are compatible with the situation and do not detract from the landmarked property. Mr. Frick stated this project will introduce housing in areas where many historic buildings are now businesses. He agreed the mass and bulk are compatible but questioned the eyebrow. Chair Sladek agreed the mass and overall bulk of the building is not inappropriate for the area. Mr. Slezak argued the west elevation with multiple balconies is attractive and suggested Ms. McWilliams could provide those images to the Commission. He stated he would like some indication from the Commission as to whether or not the project will be supported. Chair Sladek stated there is a general level of comfort with the project. He added that while the question regarding whether or not building in this location is appropriate still exists, he has not heard any opposition to the project in general expressed by the Commission.  OTHER BUSINESS Ms. Dunn asked about the Commission giving a recommendation to Council regarding BFO offers. Ms. McWilliams described the three BFO offers submitted by Historical Preservation staff, one for a review of the codes and ordinances, one for a contractual surveyor position, and one to develop an interactive website and database to make survey information available to the community. The City Manager’s proposed budget includes a funding recommendation for the code review item; however, the other two items are currently not recommended for funding. Ms. Dunn supported the other two offers stating they would speed up projects. Chair Sladek replied he would be in favor of with a letter of support from the Commission. Mr. Ernest asked how a letter of support might help at this point in the budget process. Ms. Dunn replied Council may not support the offers if the Commission doesn't support them. Ms. McWilliams stated the final vote on the budget will occur in November. Mr. Frick moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission draft and submit a letter to City Council in support of the three BFO offers. Ms. Dunn seconded. The motion passed 6:0. Ms. Dunn stated she will draft a letter for the Commission supporting the three BFO offers for Chair Sladek to review and sign. Mr. Lingle expressed concern regarding the Commission's consistency in terms of the addition on 419 Mathews, suggesting the Commission might not have approved such an addition on an already landmarked property. He stated the addition has no character in terms of being reflective of the house to which it was being added. Chair Sladek said that would be a good discussion to have when they have an item before them. Mr. Lingle said he didn't think it was an issue that would have prevented the Commission from recommending designation in this case, but he questioned whether their position would have consistent if the situation were reversed. Mr. Hogestad questioned that the decision was inconsistent, noting that recommending designation of a property that already has an addition is an entirely different situation than approving an addition on an existing landmark. Ms. Dunn stated chronology is important since the addition would not be placed after designation. Mr. Frick noted the addition was on the rear of the building and was a single story. Ms. Dunn agreed that a recommendation for designation was easier to support given the size and location of the addition. • ADJOURNMENT Chair Sladek adjourned the meeting at 7:31 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by Gretchen Schiager. Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on Ron Sladek, Chair City of Fort Collins Page6 September 14, 2016