Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 07/27/2016City of Fort Collins Page 1 July 27, 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 July 27, 2016 Minutes • CALL TO ORDER Chair Sladek called the meeting to order at 5:33 p.m. • ROLL CALL PRESENT: Dunn, Zink, Hogestad, Gensmer, Lingle, Ernest, Frick, Sladek ABSENT: Wallace STAFF: McWilliams, Bzdek, Yatabe, Schmidt, 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 July 27, 2016 • CONSENT AGENDA [Timestamp: 5:35 p.m.] 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 13, 2016 REGULAR MEETING. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the July 13, 2016 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. 2. 326 GARFIELD STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a proposal to alter the house located at 326 Garfield Street with a side bump-out addition. The property was determined to be individually eligible as a Fort Collins Landmark. APPLICANT / OWNER: Roger Northen, 326 Garfield Street Commission Deliberation Mr. Ernest and Mr. Frick recused themselves from voting on the Consent Agenda having been absent for the July 13, 2016 meeting for which the minutes were being approved. Mr. Hogestad moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the Consent Agenda of the regular meeting of July 27, 2016 regular meeting as presented. Ms. Gensmer seconded. The motion passed 6:0. • DISCUSSION AGENDA [Secretary’s Note: The Applicant for Poudre Garage was not present when the item was called. Chair Sladek suggested moving on to the next item, however, the Applicants for Landmark Apartments Expansion were also not present. The Commission took a 20 minute recess until the Poudre Garage Applicant arrived.] [Timestamp: 5:53 p.m.] 3. POUDRE GARAGE (BDR160007) – REQUEST FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE DECISION MAKER PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a proposed addition to 148 Remington Street, a Fort Collins Landmark (Ordinance No. 134, 1997), constructed in 1937. The project is a four-story addition with a setback above the third story. This is a Basic Development Review (BDR) process, therefore the Commission’s recommendation will be to the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services. There is no public hearing associated with a BDR decision. The Director’s decision may be appealed to the Planning and Zoning Board. APPLICANT: Jason Kersley, [au]workshop, llc Mr. Ernest & Mr. Frick noted that while both were absent from the last meeting where this item was discussed, they had both reviewed the video and were prepared to discuss the item. Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report, including background and details for the project, the proposed area of adjacency and the review criteria. Applicant Presentation Arlo Schuman with [au]workshop gave the Applicant presentation, reviewing the changes they had made since the February meeting. He explained that they stepped back a portion of the garage on the west in order to get clearances for backing from the traffic engineer. The grass paving in the driveway in the previous plan has also been replaced with a regular sidewalk. He said they had addressed the Commission’s earlier concerns about setting back the accent panels at the two towers City of Fort Collins Page 3 July 27, 2016 to give it more relief. On the south elevation, based on the Commission’s comments, the proposed restoration of the openings on the corners now shows the transom would be in line with the rest of the windows. On the east elevation, the garage has stepped back from the property line, which is the face of the existing building. He explained that they intend to remove the decaying masonite panels at the corners of the building and restore the original openings with storefront to match the garage door openings. [Secretary’s Note: The Applicant indicated this is the “preferred option” shown in the third image on packet page 83, later referred to in the discussion and motion as Option 1.] However, if they encounter structural problems behind those panels that would prevent them from restoring those openings, they would instead replace them with a panels to match the fiber cement cladding of the new addition to create some tie-in between new and old. [Secretary’s Note: The Applicant indicated this is the “alternate option” shown in the fourth image on packet page 83, later referred to in the discussion as Option 2.] Public Input None Area of Adjacency Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission assign the area of adjacency for the Poudre Garage project, BDR160007, to include the following addresses: 148 Remington, 202 Remington, 210 East Oak, 215 East Oak, 125-133 Remington, 142 Remington, 133 Mathews and 137-143 Mathews. Mr. Frick seconded. The motion passed 8-0. Commission Questions and Discussion Mr. Lingle expressed concern about the ambiguity of the corner treatment and asked why that had not been investigated by the structural engineer prior to seeking final approval. Mr. Schuman explained that they had been unable to get into the building, but plan to do some investigative demolition work in the next couple of weeks. He said they would expect to have that resolved before they come to the LPC for Chapter 14 review. Mr. Lingle and Mr. Yatabe discussed how the Commission might proceed given the two options presented. Mr. Lingle stated that he would want to include strongly worded language in the motion to approve only the preferred option instead of both. Ms. Zink did not approve of the alternate option, adding that there might be other options to explore. Mr. Frick suggested that since the opening was only three feet, it couldn’t have that much structural impact, so he wondered why they wouldn’t just fix it. Mr. Schuman said their concern was potential damage from the Elk’s building explosion. Mr. Hogestad suspected there was sheer bracing in place, and didn’t think that would prevent them from putting windows there to keep the rhythm and pattern of the building. He said that a solid concrete panel up to the parapet seemed to be a heavy-handed solution. The Applicant didn’t disagree with that observation, and added that when they have more information, they will be better able to address the options. Mr. Hogestad asked about the pilasters, reveal and dimension on the west elevation. Mr. Schuman said the accent panel and windows would be pushed back about an inch from the other material. He said they would be using a similar accent panel on the south elevation, adding that the ribbed panels create a shadow line. Mr. Hogestad suggested that more shadow lines were needed on the south and east elevations. Mr. Schuman said that could be done on all sides. Ms. Gensmer noted that the garage set back alleviates the concerns she expressed at the previous meeting with regard to the suggestion of space between the openings on Oak Street. Mr. Ernest asked for clarification on how this process interlocks with the Chapter 14 review. Mr. Frick suggested tabling this item until the exploratory demolition is done so there can be a complete package for final review. Ms. Bzdek said the next step would be for Staff to deliver a memo detailing the Commission’s motions and findings, along with the minutes of the discussion, to the Decision Maker, which for a BDR (Basic Development Review) would be the CDNS Director. Mr. Frick suggested including specific language in the motion about the treatment of the panels and corners. City of Fort Collins Page 4 July 27, 2016 Commission Deliberation Mr. Lingle moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommends approval for BDR160007, the Poudre Garage project, finding that the project is compatible with the standards contained in Land Use Code section 3.4.7 for the following reasons: • The project design uses massing and scale that is compatible with adjacent historic buildings. • The project uses appropriate step-backs and site design to mitigate height relative to the historic context. • The project relies on building materials and design elements that are compatible with adjacent historic properties. Further, the motion includes two conditions: 1. That only Option 1 of the proposed corner treatment be approved by this Commission tonight and any deviation from that direction would come back to the LPC for further consideration; 2. That appropriate differentiation in the south and east façade material planes be implemented to address the concerns raised by the Commission. Mr. Ernest seconded. Mr. Yatabe noted that because this is a BDR for which the decision is made by Staff, and because the Applicant has indicated general agreement with the conditions, imposing those conditions on a recommendation is fine. However, that would not necessarily be the case on a project where a Type 1 or Type 2 hearing is required. Mr. Hogestad asked about colors and materials, and suggested they would like to see those for the Chapter 14 review. Mr. Lingle said the solution proposed by the Applicant for this building was very appropriate to the scale, historic character and design of the original building. The motion passed 8:0. [Timestamp: 6:30 p.m.] 4. THIS ITEM WAS PULLED AFTER THE AGENDA WAS PUBLISHED. 5. LANDMARK APARTMENTS EXPANSION – CONCEPTUAL REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This development project proposes to expand the existing Landmark Apartments by constructing additional apartment buildings. The project proposes five apartment buildings, with a mix of 2 and 3-stories containing 72 units, with a total of 148 bedrooms. The project abuts the Sheely Drive Neighborhood Historic District, and is subject to meeting the Standards in LUC 3.4.7. This is a Type 2 project, and the Planning and Zoning Board will be the Decision Maker. APPLICANT: Cathy Mathis, The Birdsdall Group Randall Johnson, Infusion Architects Mr. Hogestad recused himself due to residing in the adjacent neighborhood. Ms. Gensmer disclosed having previously lived in the Landmark Apartments, but stated that would not create any bias for her in this matter. Mr. Yatabe recused himself due to residing within the notification area. Ms. Schmidt replaced Mr. Yatabe as legal counsel for this item. City of Fort Collins Page 5 July 27, 2016 Staff Report Ms. McWilliams presented the staff report, reviewing some of the project details, the process and the proposed area of adjacency. Applicant Presentation Dave Derbes, Owner’s Representative and Development Manager for the project, addressed the Commission. He said the plan they are currently proposing is 68 units, rather than the 72 units from the last round specified in the staff report. He said that while this was presented by Staff as a Conceptual Review, they had formally submitted their third round PDP today, and would like to request a final recommendation from the Commission tonight. He discussed their efforts to work with Staff, the LPC and the neighbors to achieve compatibility, noting that they believe the current design effectively mitigates the impact of the development. He explained that tonight’s presentation includes the additional imagery requested by the Commission, Staff and neighbors, such as cross-sections, 3-D elevations and view shed studies. He said the PDP is ready for final review, and that any remaining concerns from Planning Staff would not impact the overall compatibility of the project. He added that they understand the Commission’s recommendation could be contingent on the current design and that any further revisions to the design could require another review by the LPC. Mr. Derbes addressed Commission comments from the previous meeting indicating that three-story buildings in general were not compatible with the Sheely neighborhood. He said they have endeavored to find a balance that meets the owner’s goals and is compatible with the adjacent neighborhood. He said from their view shed, the walk-out basements in the Sheely neighborhood give the homes a two-story character. He outlined the changes they have made to their plans to address the concerns about building heights, which include the location of the buildings on the site to minimize disruption to the existing view shed, reduction from three-stories to two-stories on buildings C and D, removal of a building at the southeast portion of the site, and the introduction of stepped down two-story elements on buildings B and E. To further reduce the mass and scale of building E, which falls within that view shed, they have removed 4 units, reducing the overall number from 72 to 68. They also relocated a three-story building to the northeast corner of the site, a location identified by the neighbors as the least impactful. Mr. Derbes presented a site plan titled “Home to Building Distances”, which was not in the packet, in order to illustrate that the buildings in the proposed development range from over 130 feet to 230 feet away from the homes in the Sheely neighborhood. He pointed out that many other developments are dealing with much closer proximities, such as 15 or 30 feet. He believes the distance in this case significantly mitigates the impact. Additionally, he stated that their design team has ensured that the highest point of this development is no more impactful than what already exists in the Landmark Apartments. He went on to state that they feel this proposed development is consistent with zoning requirements and established development patterns throughout the City. He showed examples of other approved projects in comparison, including Cherry Street Lofts, College 830, Cortina, Library Park and The Slab. He said they want to understand if and why a different standard would be applied with regard to the compatibility of this proposed project and these three-story structures. Mr. Johnson continued the presentation, talking in more detail about how they have minimized the impact of the proposed project by moving the density to the “panhandle”, and reducing the mass of some of the buildings. He discussed the design progression. He said they’ve made all the buildings unique in color, shape, size and roofline and located them in a more random fashion along the driveways. They reduced the roof pitch from 4/12 to 3/12 to reduce the overall size and compliment the character of the Sheely neighborhood. Mr. Johnson said at the last meeting they received direction to pay more attention to the Sheely neighborhood itself, and the characteristics of those homes, rather than trying to follow the documentation previously provided by Staff and neighbors which had never actually been approved. He pointed out they have utilized low-sloped roofs, extended eave-lines, variation in window types, a mix of horizontal and vertical elements, and a mix of shapes and materials to break up the façades. He talked about the efforts they have made to protect the views and provide parking lot screening. He also discussed the buffering provided by existing landscaping. City of Fort Collins Page 6 July 27, 2016 Public Input Per Hogestad introduced himself as a Commission Member and homeowner in the Sheely Historic District. He noted that he had recused himself from the Commission proceedings for this project. He said his primary concerns are the size of the buildings, the density of the development, the views and how the project overwhelms the District. He stated that the site is so dense it doesn’t allow for enough variation in the placement of the buildings. He said that the perspectives presented by the Applicant were deceptive. He presented slides to illustrate his position. He described how he went about pacing off the field and using a camera on balloons in order to more accurately portray how the buildings obscure the views from his patio and balcony. He also discussed how the buildings intrude on the privacy of the homes in the Sheely District. Mr. Hogestad said there was very little horizontality on the buildings, and that the elevations are mirrored from one side to the other without much asymmetry. He said he was puzzled by claim that the buildings are integrated into the landscape, and that he wanted to see the buildings step into the grade. Coleen Hoffman, a resident of the neighborhood, pointed out that a walkout basement is not considered a story. She emphasized that these are single story homes, and these huge buildings were not compatible. She also noted that development on the north side of Prospect was mentioned by the Applicant , but it is not comparable because it has different zoning and plans than the south side. Additionally, she stated that the existing yards, trees and greenery can’t be considered buffering for this project, asserting that the project should have its own buffering and plantings. Area of Adjacency Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission adopt the Sheely Drive Neighborhood Historic District as the area of adjacency for the Landmark Apartments Expansion. Mr. Frick seconded. The motion passed 7:0. Commission Questions and Discussion Mr. Frick said the Applicant had made good progress with the design, but that the buildings are just too big for the Sheely Drive Neighborhood and obliterate the views of the southwest and west. He said two and a half stories is a good start, but one and a half would be better, and that the number of units will likely need to go down. Mr. Ernest asked to clarify whether density, in the context of this discussion, refers to the number of buildings or the number of dwelling units, or both. Mr. Frick said it was both. Chair Sladek said while he understands the concern about the view shed from the neighbors’ perspective, he questions whether that falls within the Commission’s purview. He pointed out that 3.4.7 focuses on potential negative impact on the historic resource, and said he was unclear as to whether the loss of the view shed has that kind of impact. Ms. Schmidt pointed out some of the specific language of 3.4.7, and said that if the Commission feels the view shed contributes to the integrity of the District, they would need to articulate a rational relationship between the view shed and the character of the neighborhood, or how it impacts the elements that are intended to be compatible in 3.4.7. Mr. Lingle said that in order to find some impact to 3.4.7, there has to be diminishment of significance or integrity, and that it would be a real reach to consider the view shed as part of the integrity or significance of the Historic District. He added that if the District were being proposed today, views of the mountains are not likely to be listed under its qualifying attributes. Mr. Lingle and Chair Sladek agreed that view sheds were an issue that would fall under the Planning and Zoning Board’s purview, rather than the LPC. Chair Sladek did not see the change in the view shed as detrimental to the District itself, adding that the District would still retain the vast majority of its aspects of integrity. Mr. Ernest said that while the view shed in particular was not within their purview under 3.4.7, perhaps a case could be made that these two- and three-story buildings were not compatible with the low-slung single-story mid-century architectural character of the homes in the District. The view shed is an adjunct to whether the architecture and height of the new construction is compatible with the historic character of the Sheely District. Chair Sladek pointed out that the Applicant had made good case for what they’ve done to make the development compatible. He added that the Commission has recently approved two- or three-story developments adjacent to one-story homes. City of Fort Collins Page 7 July 27, 2016 Ms. Dunn said the lower-pitched rooflines, the additive elements, the asymmetry and the variation in the buildings significantly improved the compatibility. She pointed out that of the approved projects the Applicants referred to in their presentation, only The Slab, College 830 and the Maple & Meldrum project came to the LPC. She explained how each of those developments used step backs or distance between buildings to mitigate the height. She added that the parking lot of this design creates a buffer between the new buildings and the District. Ms. Gensmer agreed with Ms. Dunn and added that the increased variation in window size, shape and type also helps with compatibility. Chair Sladek agreed with the homeowner that the developer should provide a buffer in addition to the existing landscaping, but said the parking lot and new landscaping provides that. He stated that he believes they are ready for final review, and does not see any rationale to delay that any further. Mr. Lingle felt the Applicant had addressed all of the concerns expressed by the Commission in previous meetings. They reduced the number of buildings, the height of buildings, and the number of units by 17%. They have made all of the buildings completely different in design, fixed the pitch of the roof, deepened the eaves and overhangs and introduced vertical elements. He said Building A was very well articulated with nice horizontal lines broken with vertical masses. He added that unless they are prepared to say that nothing other than single-family one-story homes is acceptable, he saw no point in delaying the recommendation. Chair Sladek said he didn’t see anything in 3.4.7 to indicate this project would be detrimental to the District. Ms. McWilliams stated that in order to push the project all the way to the West, the Applicant significantly reduced the setbacks, and that has not yet been reviewed or approved by Planning Staff. She asked Ms. Schmidt whether there would be any issue with public notice if they proceed to a final review, since this was advertised as a Conceptual Review. Ms. Schmidt said since there was no mailed or posted notice, the question is whether the fact that it was published on the agenda as a Conceptual Review rather than a Final Recommendation had any impact on the public’s ability to participate. She said the most conservative approach would be to continue to next meeting, but it is at the prerogative of the board to make a final determination. Chair Sladek pointed out that this is a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Board, which will be holding its own hearing on the matter. Clark Mapes, City Planner, said that Staff has not yet reviewed the new submittal that came in today, so it was possible something could change that would result in the project coming back to the Commission. Ms. McWilliams added that the Commissions’ purview is not on the buildings or landscape, but on the effect on the character of the Sheely Drive Neighborhood. Commission Deliberation Mr. Lingle moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission find that the Landmark Apartments Expansion project as presented has sufficient information provided in order to move to final design review. Ms. Dunn seconded. The motion passed 6:1, with Mr. Frick dissenting. Mr. Lingle moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend approval of the Landmark Apartments Expansion project to the Decision Maker, finding that the project is compatible with the standards contained in Land Use Code Section 3.4.7 for following reasons: 1. The project design as proposed does not adversely impact the historic character of the area of adjacency. 2. The project uses appropriate step backs and site design to mitigate height relative to the historic context. 3. The project incorporates design elements that reflect those contributing to the historic character of the area of adjacency. Ms. Dunn seconded. The motion passed 6:1, with Mr. Frick dissenting. [Timestamp: 7:54 p.m.] Mr. Hogestad and Mr. Yatabe rejoined the Commission, and Ms. Schmidt departed the meeting.