Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 03/21/2018City of Fort Collins Page 1 March 21, 2018 Meg Dunn, Chair City Council Chambers Alexandra Wallace, Vice Chair City Hall West Michael Bello 300 Laporte Avenue Katie Dorn Fort Collins, Colorado Bud Frick 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 March 21, 2018 Minutes • CALL TO ORDER Chair Dunn called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. • ROLL CALL PRESENT: Dunn, Hogestad, Wallace, Gensmer, Frick, Dorn, Bello, Murray ABSENT: Simpson STAFF: McWilliams, Bzdek, Bumgarner, Yatabe, Schiager, Wray • AGENDA REVIEW Staff stated there were no changes to the posted agenda. Chair Dunn and Ms. Gensmer noted that they were absent for the work session but have reviewed the recording. • STAFF REPORTS None. Landmark Preservation Commission City of Fort Collins Page 2 March 21, 2018 • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. • DISCUSSION AGENDA [Timestamp: 5:32 p.m.] 1. 225 MAPLE STREET - CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for conceptual design review of The Continental Oil Company at 225 Maple Street, designated as a Fort Collins landmark in 2017. The proposed work includes a retractable or fixed patio system. The applicants are seeking feedback on the proposed patio system, including the design’s shape, system, and material options. APPLICANT: Mallory Andrews, Owner of FoCo Cafe Staff Report Cassandra Bumgarner presented the staff report. She noted the location map and property description have been updated since the work session. She reviewed the proposed plans and the role of the Commission. She also reviewed the questions and requests from the Commission at the work session, including the definition of “fixed,” the level of permanence of the awning system, how the system will be attached, and what type of materials will be used. Applicant Presentation Ms. Andrews and her intern gave the Applicant presentation. She shared a new rough draft sketch and material samples explaining that one is used in boat covers and one is canvas, both of which are waterproof. Ms. Andrews stated the plan was for two sides of the awning to be fixed and the middle part zippered and retractable. If two poles were added, all sides could be made retractable. Public Input None. Commission Questions and Discussion Chair Dunn noted this project involves an already designated building; therefore Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code applies. In the case of development review, Chapter 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code is utilized. The applicant passed a handwritten drawing and material samples to the Commission. Chair Dunn asked if the fabric would be opaque. Ms. Andrews replied it would likely be a green canvas and the walls would have clear vinyl windows. Chair Dunn asked where the poles would attach. Ms. Andrews replied they would attach to the existing railing and to the top; however, details have yet to be determined. Mr. Bello asked if it would be possible for the entire addition to be clear in order to maintain the integrity of the building. Ms. Andrews replied that has not yet been explored. Chair Dunn asked if the fabric would be right against the building or against the edge of the porch. Ms. Andrews replied it will be against the edge of the porch and will not hide the stairs. Mr. Frick stated the attachment and fabric details will be important and the addition should be removable without ruining any of the structure. He suggested the use of as much clear material as possible. Ms. Andrews agreed. Mr. Frick asked if heaters would be included. Ms. Andrews replied they have not yet decided. Ms. Wallace asked if the addition would attach to the overhand. Ms. Andrews replied it would be attached to the front side and new pole would be added to accommodate the front and left side. City of Fort Collins Page 3 March 21, 2018 Mr. Murphy discussed the importance of being able to remove the addition without affecting the existing structure and stated he would like the addition to be as clear as possible. Ms. Andrews stated she will be meeting with her architect and he is familiar with the historic preservation aspects of the structure. Mr. Hogestad stated the Commission would like to know how large the roll-up will be at the eave line. He asked if the walls would be rolled down most of the winter. Ms. Andrews replied that is likely; however, it would only be down during inclement or exceptionally cold weather. Ms. Wallace suggested the applicant return with images of this type of structure on other buildings. Chair Dunn stated the Commission would like more details on the attachment, reversibility, size when the walls are rolled up, photo examples, and information on transparent fabric. Mr. Hogestad stated he would like additional plan of operation information as to when the addition will be in use. He expressed concern this will change the overall mass of the building and use of the porch. Mr. Frick suggested the possibility of using heated air curtains. Mr. Hogestad stated the University has considered air curtains and they are somewhat difficult. He suggested a solution may involve heating outside rather than including curtains. Secretary’s Note: Chair Dunn recused herself from the following item because she participated in the original review. Vice Chair Wallace took over as chair. 2. 225 SOUTH LOOMIS AVENUE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This item is to consider the appeal of the determination of eligibility for Fort Collins local landmark designation of 225 South Loomis Avenue, which was considered eligible for its architecture. OWNER/APPLICANT: Karin Boes Vice Chair Wallace read a statement about the process for this item. Staff Report Cassandra Bumgarner presented the staff report, including the background and history. She showed photos of other homes on the block, and others with similar columns in the Westside neighborhood. She then showed photos of the current property and garage. She provided detailed photos of the columns and reviewed the relevant codes and processes. Questions of Staff None Applicant Presentation Ms. Boes stated she and her family have outgrown the home and noted the placement of basement bedrooms and rear expansion are impossible; therefore, building upward is the only way for them to remain in the house. She stated she is committed to maintaining the home’s architectural integrity and noted the front third of the house would remain the same with the 2nd story portion set back. Ms. Boes stated her home should be found ineligible because: 1) It was found to be ineligible in 2005; 2) The pillars are not original and are much wider than pillars on similar homes; 3) Historical photos of her home show a covered porch which no longer exists; 4) The house at 204 South Grant was recently deemed ineligible due to a porch change; and 5) The home does not meet any of the seven standards of integrity. Questions of the Applicant None Staff Response None Public Input None City of Fort Collins Page 4 March 21, 2018 Commission Questions and Discussion Vice Chair Wallace asked about the integrity of the structure. Mr. Bello stated integrity does not seem to exist given the columns are not accurate and a front porch used to exist. Mr. Murray stated the columns appear to be original. Mr. Hogestad asked who previously surveyed the property and found the columns were not original. Mr. Murray discussed aspects of the columns, including their irregularity, which indicate they may be original. Commission members discussed other properties with similar columns. Ms. Bumgarner stated the Westside survey, completed in 2000, by Carl McWilliams, indicates the columns are incompatible with the house’s bungalow character and are probably not original. Mr. Hogestad noted there are similar homes with similar columns. Mr. Bello noted these columns are larger in diameter than some of the others on Oak. Mr. Frick stated the photos of columns on Loomis show them to be proportional. Mr. Murray discussed a photo showing round columns inside a screened porch. Vice Chair Wallace asked if the Commission believes the home has any significance for events or persons, or design and construction. Mr. Bello asked why the home was determined to be ineligible in 2005. Ms. Bumgarner replied they have an email sent to the appellant; however, it does not include additional information. Mr. Hogestad stated the house is a cottage or bungalow type and the columns, if original, are a major contributing factor to the character of the house. He stated the columns are an important part of the architectural expression of the building. Mr. Frick stated other examples of similar houses with similar columns do exist and it is difficult to tell if the columns are round or square. He stated the columns seem to be fitting with the style of the house and there is no documentation as to when the columns were changed, if at all, and if they were changed more than 50 years ago, they would become part of the history of the house. Mr. Bello asked if the historic character of the building includes the screened in porch, which no longer exists. Mr. Hogestad stated the screened in porch was an addition, based on pattern books. Mr. Bello stated the historic structure, 50 years ago, had a screened in porch. Mr. Murray stated the home has a lot of original materials and workmanship. He stated he views the house as significant, but is unsure why the owner was told it was ineligible. Vice Chair Wallace asked if the house retains integrity. Mr. Frick replied in the affirmative. Mr. Hogestad stated he is struggling with whether the columns are historic to the building or are within the period of significance. He stated the columns are a character-defining feature; however, he needs additional information. He asked if the applicant would be willing to do additional research. Ms. Boes replied she could do more research; however, she stated she is unsure how to prove whether they are original. Mr. Bello pointed out material which now appears to be concrete appeared to be brick in photos. Vice Chair Wallace stated the location and design remain intact and the columns are a character- defining feature. She stated the feeling and association are also intact, as well as the workmanship even if the columns are not original. Ms. Gensmer agreed with Vice Chair Wallace. Mr. Hogestad agreed with some of the standards of exterior integrity; however, it may not rise to the design standard. Ms. Dorn also agreed with Vice Chair Wallace. Mr. Bello stated the integrity does not exist if the columns are not original. Mr. Murray stated materials, design, and workmanship all exist, and the context of the structure in the neighborhood exists. City of Fort Collins Page 5 March 21, 2018 Vice Chair Wallace stated there may not be complete agreement on whether the structure supports design and workmanship standards. Mr. Murray stated the materials fit what was there originally, except the roof. The design is the same as it was in 1968, except without the screened porch. The workmanship was well done, or at least well maintained. Ms. Boes stated the garage doors do not work well and will likely be replaced by a future owner. Vice Chair Wallace requested the Commission consider context. Vice Chair Wallace stated the context shows a lot of single-story cottages, return eaves, and similar window patterns. Mr. Hogestad stated they are all vernacular houses from a simple design palate; the house in question is very similar to others on the block and in the neighborhood. Ms. Dorn agreed the context is a vernacular style, mostly single-story structures, but somewhat eclectic in nature. Mr. Hogestad stated the columns, whether or not original, are consistent with the vernacular of the neighborhood. Vice Chair Wallace asked if the decision to declare the home eligible would be impacted if the Commission knew the columns were a newer addition. Mr. Hogestad noted even the older photos show some type of column structures in the same location. Mr. Frick stated the columns, whether new or old, are a good representation of the house’s style and are in keeping with its design. Mr. Murray, Ms. Gensmer, and Ms. Dorn agreed. Mr. Bello stated this is not the only or last building of this character in Fort Collins and cited integrity issues with the columns and screened in porch. Vice Chair Wallace noted the goal of this item is to determine whether the home is eligible for designation, not to actually designate it. Commission Deliberation Mr. Frick moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission find 225 South Loomis Avenue individually eligible as a Fort Collins landmark, according to the standards outlined in Section 14-5 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code, based on the following findings of fact: • The seven aspects of integrity are met. Mr. Murray seconded. Mr. Yatabe suggested findings as to significance, exterior integrity, and context should be included. Mr. Frick added to his motion: for significance, under 2c, design and construction, characteristics of type, period, method of construction, represent the work of a craftsman or architect whose work is distinguishable from others by its characteristic style or quality, possesses high artistic values, design concept, part of a recognized and distinguishable group of properties. The standard applies to such disciplines as formal and vernacular architecture, significant as it was originally constructed, and illustrates the tastes and attitudes of the period of time. For determining exterior integrity: location is unchanged; the design of the property is intact from when it was originally built; it is still in its same setting; it reflects the pattern of construction at the time; the materials are original to the property; the workmanship is original particular to the property type; the feeling of the neighborhood is still intact; the association requires the presence of physical features that convey a property’s historic character, which it does. The context has been considered, and the home is in its original block surrounded by similar buildings of a similar time period. Mr. Murray seconded the amendments. The motion passed 6-1 with Bello dissenting. Vice Chair Wallace summarized the decision of the Commission. Ms. Boes asked how she should proceed. Vice Chair Wallace referred her to staff. City of Fort Collins Page 6 March 21, 2018 [Timestamp: 6:57 p.m.] Secretary’s Note: Chair Dunn returned for consideration of the remaining agenda items. 3. 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 also 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 Staff Report Maren Bzdek presented the staff report and provided an updated map for potential considerations for the area of adjacency. She reviewed nearby eligible and designated structures and noted the Commission will not be providing a formal recommendation for the project at this time. Applicant Presentation Mr. Hosanna, representing the owner and developer, gave the Applicant presentation and discussed the proposed project. Regarding compatibility, Mr. Hosanna discussed the taller first floor height, similar window sizes, uniformity in massing and brick patterning, and signage. He discussed the aspects of the frozen food building next door and the efforts his team has made toward compatibility with that structure and the alley and parking garage on the other side. Mr. Hosanna discussed the proposed materials which include brick, metal, Cementous panels, sandstone, and stucco. Public Input None. Commission Questions and Discussion Chair Dunn stated the Commissions comments should be focused on the historic and eligible properties in the area, after determining an area of adjacency. Mr. Murray stated this is the corner of Old Town and it is important for it to present itself as an entrance to the Old Town Historic District. Ms. Dorn asked for input regarding 137-143 Mathews, the McIntire house, and how it plays into the adjacency discussion. Chair Dunn replied materials and massing are considered in determining adjacency. Mr. Hogestad stated materials and material scale are important to consider. Mr. Yatabe noted the Code in place at the time of application submittal would be the Code applicable to the project. Mr. Frick stated the design seems to miss the context of the frozen food building in terms of window patterns and building height. He made some suggestions for design changes. Mr. Hosanna discussed the patio step backs and stated the façades on Mathews and Mountain were deemed the primary frontages. Mr. Frick stated he would prefer a setback and balcony step back between the two buildings to accentuate the visual relationship between the frozen food building and the corner of the new building. Mr. Bello suggested the applicant consider a material change at the level of the frozen food building. Chair Dunn summarized the comments stating the Commission would like to see more of a relationship between the two buildings where the new building is in deference, perhaps in the form of a setback or step back or change in materials or height. Ms. Gensmer agreed that the corner is giving her pause due to the comparative massing. She suggested a material change may alleviate that. City of Fort Collins Page 7 March 21, 2018 Mr. Hogestad asked how much differential exists between the face of the pilasters and the face of the building. Mr. Hosanna replied it is about two feet. Mr. Hogestad expressed concern the building feels a bit fragmented and stated the balconies on the corner at Mathews and Mountain are not in keeping with historic buildings. He asked if the windows are flush mounted. Mr. Hosanna replied there is a 2.5 to 3-inch return and stated they are looking at opportunities for more articulation. Mr. Hogestad stated he would like to see more shadow lines if possible. Mr. Hosanna stated they are still working to define the cornice at the top of the wall. Mr. Bello commented on the heaviness of the materials and building. Mr. Hosanna stated the brick is planned to be in the light red clay family. Ms. Dorn asked if it would be possible to keep the warm color family with some of the materials. Mr. Hosanna replied that the grays are actually warm. Mr. Hogestad asked if the rain screen is typical. Mr. Hosanna replied it will include closed joints. Chair Dunn summarized the Commission members’ comments stating they would like the frozen food building and corner to be better addressed, include additional historic patterning and shadow lines, and ensure materials are compatible. Secretary’s Note: The Commission took a break at 8:09 p.m. and reconvened at 8:21p.m. 4. OASIS ON OLIVE - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a proposal for the development of a 3 story multi-family condominium building and ground level parking located at 312 W Olive Street, between Howes Street and Canyon Avenue. The 7-unit building includes an enclosed at-grade parking garage with 7 parking spaces. Access to the controlled garage will be from Olive Street on the south side of the complex. Exiting will be out to Canyon Avenue to the west along a one-way private drive. This proposal will be subject to a Planning and Zoning Board (Type II) review. APPLICANT/OWNER: Stephen Slezak, Owner/Developer Staff Report Karen McWilliams presented the staff report. She mentioned that the property is located behind 227 and 231 South Howes and that a new lot was created behind them. She reviewed the role of the Commission and the area of adjacency, noting no motion will occur on the area of adjacency. She reviewed the information that was requested at the work session. Applicant Presentation Mr. Slezak gave the Applicant presentation. He reviewed the new slides that had been submitted the day before the meeting and provided some background information. Public Input None. Commission Questions and Discussion Regarding Area of Adjacency Chair Dunn opened a discussion about the area of adjacency. She stated the parking lot to the east will not be included and asked if the post office should be included. Members replied in the negative. Members opted to leave the old bank building at Oak and Canyon within the area of adjacency, leaving the area with 5 properties. Mr. Slezak clarified the project has been submitted. Mr. Yatabe stated the Commission could vote on an area of adjacency if desired. Commission members discussed buildings within the area of the proposed project. Ms. McWilliams identified the properties to be included within the area of adjacency: 316 West Olive, the landmark designated property at 231 South Howes, the property that is individually eligible, another property that is a Fort Collins Landmark, and 315 West Oak. City of Fort Collins Page 8 March 21, 2018 Mr. Frick moved to accept the five properties as the area of adjacency, as noted in the discussion, and as included in the staff report. Ms. Gensmer seconded. The motion passed 8:0. Commission Questions and Discussion Regarding the Development Mr. Frick stated he liked the tower feature with the vertical ribbon of corner windows. Mr. Slezak stated some of the windows have been changed and have yet to be corrected on the renderings. He stated last year, the Commission expressed that it was more desirable to reflect the window sizes of the adjacent historic properties. Mr. Frick asked about the two different sized windows on the bump out. Mr. Slezak replied they are the same size. Mr. Slezak stated the predominant window size on the properties at 231, 227, 223, and 312 are 2.5 feet by 5 feet and clarified there are no mullions. The windows are double-hung. Chair Dunn stated the garage looks more grounded than it did previously, which was appreciated by the Commission. Chair Dunn asked if any members wanted to address materials or massing. Mr. Hogestad stated he would like to have an idea of where eave and window heights are relative to the historic buildings. Mr. Slezak replied he will need to get that information later. Mr. Hogestad asked the tower is tall for a particular reason. Mr. Slezak replied it needs to match the roof truss and could possibly be lowered a few inches. It is currently 40 feet to its peak. Mr. Hogestad expressed concern the tower feels out of proportion. Chair Dunn noted the tower is not needed for stairs. Ms. Dorn asked if this type of tower was submitted with the PDP. Mr. Slezak replied the new submittal includes a vertical window ribbon. Mr. Slezak stated he likes the roofline articulation and it helps to soften the impact of the Cortina building. Chair Dunn noted the Commission is looking for roof line articulation that is compatible with historic buildings, which do not involve much articulation or a tower feature rising above the main roof line. Mr. Hogestad stated the building needs something to help give it human scale. Chair Dunn summarized the Commission comments stating they would like a better sense of the tower proportion to the historic buildings, a comparison of eave heights and other alignments with historic structures, information on the windows, detail regarding materials, and information regarding the historic sense of scale. Mr. Hogestad stated he would like more specific information on the type of stone. Mr. Slezak replied the stone is the same blond sandstone as is on the Cortina building. Chair Dunn stated there is generally support for the project; however, the Commission just needs more details regarding materials and heights in comparison to historic buildings. [Timestamp: 9:24 p.m.] • OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Hogestad commented on the work session downtown plan presentation. He asked if there had been any survey done on Buckingham. Ms. McWilliams replied a survey of all three of the sugar factory neighborhoods was done in 2000. Mr. Hogestad commented on the transition in stories near the neighborhood and suggested staff utilize the surveys when looking at new projects. He stated it is important to talk about compatibility with the buildings in those neighborhoods. • ADJOURNMENT Chair Dunn adjourned the meeting at 9:27 p.m. Minutes prepared by Tara Lehman, Tripoint Data. · Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on I 'ir ,¥n \ QQ\ "6 . Me~a~ City of Fort Collins Page 9 March 21, 2018