Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 03/15/2017City of Fort Collins Page 1 March 15, 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 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 March 15, 2017 Minutes • CALL TO ORDER Chair Dunn called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. • ROLL CALL PRESENT: Dunn, Zink, Hogestad, Wallace, Lingle, Ernest, Frick, Simpson ABSENT: Gensmer STAFF: McWilliams, Bzdek, Bumgarner, Yatabe, Schiager • AGENDA REVIEW Ms. Bzdek explained that two of the originally scheduled Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Design Reviews had been postponed to the April 19th meeting. • STAFF REPORTS Ms. Bzdek updated the staff on the recent meeting of the Historic Preservation Code Advisory Committee. Landmark Preservation Commission City of Fort Collins Page 2 March 15, 2017 • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Maggie Dennis, a local grant-writer working for the Poudre Heritage Alliance, informed the Commission about the Heritage Culturalist Program. • DISCUSSION AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 15, 2017 REGULAR MEETING. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the February 15, 2017 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the minutes of the February 15, 2017 regular meeting as presented. Mr. Frick seconded. The motion passed 8:0. 2. LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a proposed design for a three-story residential project that would be a Net Zero Energy building on a 4,600-square-foot site at the southwest corner of Oak and Mathews Streets. The development site is within the Neighborhood Conservation – Buffer District (NCB). Final review will be a Type 1 hearing with a hearing officer. APPLICANT: Laurie and Bob Davis, Davis Davis Architects Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report, including the LPC’s role, the proposed area of adjacency, and the Applicant’s responses to the Commission’s work session questions. Applicant Presentation Ms. Davis gave the Applicant presentation. She pointed out the buildings in the immediate area, described the site plan, parking plans and floor plans. A small 3D model was passed to the Commission members. She talked about the materials to be used, and passed some samples to the Commission. Ms. Davis addressed the compatibility of the project to its area of adjacency. She talked about the dimensional compatibility, pointing out the similarity in size and lot line between this project and other buildings within the area of adjacency. She spoke about this project’s character and pattern compatibility. She talked about the compatibility of the building materials, comparing terracotta to brick in terms of its composition, although more modern. She talked about the visual and pedestrian connections between the site and the neighborhood. She said the landscaping would be simple, saving the existing tree in the lot. Public Input Brian Dunbar, citizen and design construction professor at CSU, spoke in support of the project and the “Living Building Challenge” and talked about the sensitivity required when adding a new structure to a historic neighborhood. Staff Response to Public Comment None Applicant Response to Public Comment Ms. Davis submitted a letter of support from a neighbor to be entered into the record. Commission Questions and Discussion City of Fort Collins Page 3 March 15, 2017 The Commission discussed the proposed area of adjacency for the project. Mr. Hogestad pointed out that the houses on Oak Street to the north and east that were included in the neighborhood connections diagrams should be added to the area of adjacency. He also mentioned Library Park as a connector to the houses to the north and east. Chair Dunn agreed, noting that since the Applicant addressed compatibility with some buildings that were as much as two blocks away, the Commission should also consider historic properties within that area. Chair Dunn asked whether the house immediately to the right of the apartments was on the National Register. Ms. Bzdek said she would have to look into that, but stated that it is not locally landmarked and there is no recent determination of eligibility for it. Chair Dunn would like to have determinations on all the older houses on the map. Mr. Ernest noted that 324 E. Oak is the Mosman House, so the one labeled 1982 on the map should be 322 E. Oak, which was actually constructed in 1892, not 1982. Chair Dunn asked about the two apartment buildings. Ms. Bzdek mentioned that the one at 207 Mathews dated 1966 has been determined to be ineligible, but there is no recent determination on the other apartment building. Chair Dunn asked about the brick house on Mathews between Mountain and Oak where the blind lawyer lived, just south of the frozen foods building. Ms. Bzdek said it is eligible and may be on the National Register. Ms. Bzdek will confirm the details. Mr. Lingle appreciated the inclusion of seven of the nine buildings that were part of the area of adjacency for the 215 Mathews building. He stated that satisfies his concern about consistency. There was some discussion about whether to include the Historic Landmark Cabins just south of the Carnegie Library. Members commented that the typology of the cabins is significantly different than the rest of the properties under consideration, and noted that they that have lost their context and are relics. The consensus was that that they did not need to be included. Chair Dunn concluded the discussion about the area of adjacency and directed the discussion toward compatibility. Mr. Lingle expressed concern about the ambiguity of the flex space on the ground floor, and asked for details such as type of glass, color and how it would look to the public should it be used as garage space. Ms. Davis responded that the cars would not be visible to the public. She said they might consider frosted glass, or a vision line keeping the clear stories clear, emphasizing that they want to be flexible while having an activated street. Mr. Lingle suggested they probably wouldn’t want to use obscured glass to accomplish that. Ms. Davis said that it wouldn’t be completely frosted glass, but they might use shutters. Since they don’t have buyers yet, these elements will be evolving. Mr. Lingle said he would want to hear more rationale for the typology of pulling a storefront ground floor unit into a residential neighborhood. Ms. Davis explained that the design is flexible enough that down the road, if garages are no longer needed, perhaps a coffee shop would be on the ground floor. Mr. Frick asked if there is a basement. Ms. Davis said there is a small 10 x 20 basement in the front, which may not be needed, but is currently the mechanical area. She said the garage portion would be slab on grade. Mr. Frick pointed out that if there was no requirement that the garage would follow the line of the demising wall, there would be nothing to prevent having car parts, old engines and grease in the front window. Ms. Davis said they may handle that as a condition of sale. Mr. Hogestad asked whether there is a 6” step down to the garage. Ms. Davis said there isn’t, but it qualifies as an accessible garage. Mr. Hogestad questioned how the flat room commercial form fits into the area of adjacency, when most of those buildings have gable or hip roofs and the majority are stone and brick. Ms. Davis argued that it is a shed roof, not a flat roof. Mr. Hogestad said the rainscreen gives it the appearance of a flat roof. She said the flat roof is more in alignment with the commercial properties in the area, such as Poudre Garage, Zoric Cleaners, and likely future developments. City of Fort Collins Page 4 March 15, 2017 Mr. Frick said as standalone project, it’s great, but expressed concerns about its scale, as it is almost twice as high as the small building next door. Ms. Davis said they are looking ahead to what that area will become as it is redeveloped. Mr. Lingle asked if they are seeking for approval for both the terracotta and fiber cement material options for the rainscreen. Ms. Davis answered in the affirmative, adding that the terracotta is their preference if they can make it work. Chair Dunn inquired about the selection of ebony in the palette. Ms. Davis said it was similar to the color of the brick at Park View Apartments. Ms. Dunn asked about the terracotta piece with the ridging. Ms. Davis said that was an option they were considering to add some detail. Ms. Zink asked if they use fiber cement, whether the proportions of the panels would be the same. Ms. Davis said the module might increase with the fiber cement, but they are pushing for the terracotta. Ms. Simpson expressed concern about size, particularly based on the street views. She stated the window pattern was out of character with the adjacent buildings. Ms. Davis said the window pattern is a function of the townhomes, and was designed to be less utilitarian and to provide needed light. Ms. Simpson asked if they explored any banding on the exterior to match adjacent buildings. Ms. Davis said they had not, commenting that people don’t see the world in elevation. Ms. Simpson pointed out that the windows of other buildings in the area hit the top of the window sill and suggested they look at how to make the windows fit better into the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Hogestad commented that the rainscreen was void of any detail. He said the textured material would be an improvement, and suggested they look at some way to add detail. He also expressed concern about windows with no sills or heads. Ms. Davis said the wall is 13” thick and the windows are recessed 7”. Mr. Hogestad said it lacks the detail, dimension and shadow lines one would expect with a masonry front. Regarding the storefront typology, Mr. Hogestad said that it was traditional to have retail below and residential above, and that the upper and lower window patterns and proportions are reflective of that. Mr. Lingle referenced Land Use Code section 3.4.7(F)(2) with regard to character compatibility, and noted that the Applicant’s statement in the submittal that “this is unattainable” will be a problem for the Commission if it is there in the final submittal. Ms. Davis referred to the general standard in 3.4.7, asserting that the eligibility of the adjacent historic buildings is not being negatively impacted. Mr. Lingle said the general standard is supported by the more specific standards, which must be met. Mr. Yatabe explained that the general standard in subsection A is the aspirational statement of purpose for 3.4.7. Mr. Lingle asked for confirmation that all of the standards that fall under subsection F must be met, unless they determine that the basic project design doesn’t impact the area of adjacency in a negative way. Mr. Yatabe replied that in 3.4.7(F), the Landmark Preservation Commission would not consider that if the Director finds that the plans would not have a significant impact on the individual eligibility or potential eligibility of a site, structure, object or district, but it is up to the Commission to determine what the effect is and to apply the specific standards under subsection F as they might be applicable. For example, in paragraph 3, it states that dominant materials shall be used, but the Commission has some latitude as to which adjacent structures are the basis for comparison and how they play into that. Ms. Wallace agreed that it’s a great standalone project, but noted that it will set the tone for other redevelopment in the area. She liked the terracotta and how it shows sensitivity to some of the surrounding buildings. She expressed concern that because there are so many themes in the area, it will be difficult to speak to all the surroundings. City of Fort Collins Page 5 March 15, 2017 Mr. Frick said all the adjacent buildings are residential or residential related, and it would be a stretch to fit the commercial typology on this site. Zoric Cleaners is the closest commercial use, and it’s across the street. Mr. Frick suggested if the first floor looked more residential, and the building were lowered, it might be have a better chance of morphing into an office building in the future, as others have. Mr. Lingle is more concerned with the size than the typology choice. In looking at the streetscape, he identified the little apartment building next door as the one that is out of character, and will likely be redeveloped. He stated this building is far more compatible with the others in terms of height and scale. He also commented that he likes the terracotta rainscreen as a modern take on brick. The modern design might be a struggle in terms of compatibility with the historic structures, so detail will be important. He pointed out that the NCB is meant to be a buffer transitional zone. Ms. Zink commented that she was uncomfortable with the idea that the little apartment building next door would be demolished, pointing out that it has potential and could be redeveloped without being demolished. Mr. Hogestad said the 4x8 fiber cement panel is going in the wrong direction if they are looking for more detail. Ms. Davis said the fewer cuts, the more economical it is, but that doesn’t mean it would be 4x8. It would likely be two food cuts. She pointed out that Poudre Garage uses the same material. Mr. Hogestad suggested some variance in the mortar pattern. Mr. Ernest said while this is somewhat similar in mass, scale and height to some of the other buildings in the area of adjacency, the choice of typology in the residential Library Park area will be more important as they move forward. Chair Dunn said it’s an exciting project, particularly with the net zero and transit-oriented aspects. She commented that she didn’t see anything in the design that speaks to the stone buildings in the area. Ms. Davis suggested that the shadow lines would look very similar to the horizontal dark mortar lines in the McHugh-Andrews House. Chair Dunn said it would be helpful to see a comparison. Mr. Lingle suggested that if the storefront typology only faced Oak, and didn’t turn the corner to Mathews, that may help. Mr. Hogestad talked about having residential and commercial in one building, or having a commercial building in a residential neighborhood. He likes the idea that in the future it could be retail to support that neighborhood. 3. INTRODUCTION TO THE LANDMARK REHABILITATION LOAN PROGRAM The purpose of this item is to provide an overview of the Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program process, review criteria, and scoring. Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report. She explained the program, the loan process, and the role of the LPC. She also reviewed code section 14-48 and the criteria by which the applications should be evaluated. Public Input None 4. 231 SOUTH HOWES (THE HUMPHREY/DAVIS HOUSE) – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for design review of The Humphrey/Davis House at 231 South Howes Street, designated as a Fort Collins landmark in 1998. The proposed work includes gutter replacement and repair and rehabilitation of fascia and soffits. The applicant is seeking a Landmark Rehabilitation Loan to support the proposed project. APPLICANT: Stephen Slezak City of Fort Collins Page 6 March 15, 2017 Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report. She summarized the Commission’s questions from the work session, and said the Applicant would be addressing those. She pointed out that this is a conceptual review, which will require a motion to move to final if appropriate. Applicant Presentation Mr. Slezak provided some additional information about the project. He stated that there are a lot of street trees, so even if the gutters are cleared two or three times a year, the debris causes deterioration, and explained his plan to protect it. He stated there are numerous water issues to be addressed depending on funding. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion Mr. Lingle asked about some items not included in this application, and asked for assurance that they would not be changing the look of the porch. Mr. Slezak confirmed that it would look the same. Mr. Frick asked if the concerns about structural repairs were addressed. Mr. Slezak said if they were to discover that the rafter tails were damaged upon removal of the fascia, they would have to do some research on the standards for replacing them. He said the soffit isn’t bad except on the flat portion where the roof needs to be replaced. Commission Deliberation Mr. Lingle moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission move to Final Review of the proposed work at the Humphrey/Davis House at 231 South Howes Street. Mr. Ernest seconded. The motion passed 8-0. Commission Questions and Discussion Mr. Ernest asked about the process. Ms. Bzdek responded that the scores are used in the event there is insufficient funding to fully fund all applications. Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the plans and specifications for gutter replacement and fascia and soffit work on the Humphrey/Davis House at 231 South Howes Street as presented, finding that the proposed work (a) will not erode the authenticity or destroy any distinctive exterior feature or characteristic of the improvements or site; and (b) is compatible with the distinctive characteristics of the landmark and with the spirit and purpose of Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code. Mr. Frick seconded. The motion passed 8:0. [Secretary’s Note: The Commission took a short break to complete the application scoring.] 5. JAMES ROSS PROVING-UP HOUSE - APPLICATION FOR FORT COLLINS LANDMARK DESIGNATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This item is to consider the request for a recommendation to City Council regarding landmark designation for the James Ross Proving-Up House, a 1890 residence that served as a residence to satisfy the requirements of the 1862 Homestead Act. APPLICANT: Bob Adams, Recreation Director Staff Report Ms. Bumgarner presented the staff report, including a review of the responses to the Commission’s work session questions and the role of the LPC. Applicant Presentation None City of Fort Collins Page 7 March 15, 2017 Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion Mr. Frick asked about the proposed site of the structure. Ms. Bumgarner replied that it has not been determined exactly where the structure will sit within The Farm at Lee Martinez Park. Mr. Frick would like to see it in a better location where it will be associated with the agricultural use, rather than in the storage yard. Chair Dunn asked if there was a long term plan for the property. Carol Tunner provided some history about the various sites where the structure has resided. She credited Bob Adams in the Recreation Department for the suggestion to move it to Martinez Farm along with the farm equipment and to create an architecture and agriculture park. She described her vision for the site and explained that she had applied for a grant for restoration. Mr. Lingle asked if the designation was site specific. Ms. Bumgarner said just the building is being designated, not a specific location. Ms. Tunner emphasized the need to designate the building, highlighting some of its history. Mr. Ernest mentioned that the library is now the James Ross Hall. Ms. Zink asked if it could be designated as an object, like a train car. Mr. Ernest said the sample motion doesn’t include an address, but the designation application has an address. Mr. Frick felt it was important to specify an address or location with the designation. Chair Dunn asked about designating an artifact as opposed to a building, and Ms. Bzdek said the same standards apply. She went on to point out other special objects that have addresses associated with them, even if not in their original location. Mr. Lingle suggested specifying in the motion that it meets the standards for exterior integrity of design, materials, workmanship and feeling. Chair Dunn thought association should be added to that list. Mr. Lingle wasn’t convinced, and Mr. Hogestad disagreed as well, noting that there is plenty of support for designation without including association. Mr. Yatabe provided examples of objects designated without a specific site. He cautioned against tying the structure to a specific location, and recommended that unless the Commission is making a finding as to how the farm relates to the context, they should make a designation of just the building itself. Mr. Lingle said that obtaining grant funds for work that falls outside the walls of the structure, such as an accessible path, could be problematic without a site associated with it. He also expressed concern that designating it without a site associated with it would not protect it from being moved to an inappropriate site in the future. Mr. Yatabe explained that several factors might come into their decision as to whether the location should part of the designation, but did not make a specific recommendation. Ms. Bzdek mentioned the Frank Miller Stagecoach that had been designated and had been moved several times. Mr. Frick said he preferred it be designated with a location attached to it. Mr. Yatabe was not sure whether designating an object located somewhere would offer any protection from it being moved. He suggested they could recommend to Council that it be retained at Martinez Farm. Ms. Zink pointed out that designating land around it which isn’t part of the original context still wouldn’t be likely to be eligible for grant funding outside the structure itself. Mr. Hogestad said they don’t really know anything about the site, so it would be unwise to tie the building to the site. Commission Deliberation Mr. Lingle moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission pass a resolution recommending that City Council designate the James Ross Proving-Up House as a Fort Col/Ins Landmark In accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 14, based on the property's significance under Standards A, B, and C for Its history and design as a 'filing house, association with the Ross family, and its preponderance of exterior Integrity including standards B for design, D for materials, E for workmanship and F for feeling. The Commission further recommends that City Council maintain Its location within the Lee Martinez Farm property. Mr. Ernest seconded. The motion passed 8-0. • OTHER BUSINESS Ms. Dunn shared a story about the Akin House (formerly Washington's) that is currently being renovated by the Bohemian Foundation, noting that it was the only non-consensual "de­ designation" in history. • ADJOURNMENT Chair Dunn adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by Gretchen Schiager. Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on I q ,Af ,:- ,£;l,(J t, M�,/?It � Chair City of Fort Collins PageB March 15, 2017