Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 02/19/2020Landmark Preservation Commission Page 1 February 19, 2020 Meg Dunn, Chair City Council Chambers Alexandra Wallace, Co-Vice Chair City Hall West Michael Bello 300 Laporte Avenue Mollie Bredehoft Fort Collins, Colorado Kurt Knierim Elizabeth Michell Kevin Murray Anne Nelsen Anna Simpkins Regular Meeting February 19, 2020 Minutes • CALL TO ORDER Chair Dunn called the meeting to order at 5:33 p.m. • ROLL CALL PRESENT: Bredehoft, Dunn, Knierim, Murray, Nelsen, Simpkins, Wallace ABSENT: Bello, Michell STAFF: McWilliams, Bzdek, Bertolini, Yatabe, Schiager New member, Kurt Knierim, introduced himself and shared his credentials. He spoke briefly about the importance of preservation and the Commission. • AGENDA REVIEW No changes to posted agenda. • CONSENT AGENDA REVIEW No items were pulled from consent. • STAFF REPORTS Ms. McWilliams reported on a presentation about Historic Preservation survey work given by the City’s consultant for surveying, Sherry Albertson-Clark, at last night’s Council meeting. [Secretary's Note: The video of the referenced presentation can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1fnoCoj9DY&feature=youtu.be] • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. Landmark Preservation Commission Landmark Preservation Commission Page 2 February 19, 2020 • CONSENT AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 15, 2020 The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the January 15, 2020 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. 2. STAFF DESIGN REVIEW DECISIONS ON DESIGNATED PROPERTIES Staff is tasked with reviewing projects and, in cases where the project can be approved without submitting to the Landmarks Preservation Commission, with issuing a Certificate of Appropriateness or a SHPO report under Chapter 14, Article IV of the City’s Municipal Code. This item is a report of all such review decisions since the last regular meeting of the Commission. Mr. Murray moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the Consent Agenda of the February 19, 2020 regular meeting as presented. Mr. Knierim seconded. The motion passed unanimously. • DISCUSSION AGENDA Chair Dunn recused herself from this item and Vice Chair Wallace acted as Chair. 3. THE LOIS STRUBLE PROPERTY AT 129 NORTH MCKINLEY AVENUE - APPLICATION FOR FORT COLLINS LANDMARK DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION: This item is to consider the request for a recommendation to City Council for landmark designation of the Lois Struble Property at 129 N. McKinley Ave. APPLICANT: Kim Baker Medina and Ramon Medina Aguilera Staff Report Mr. Bertolini presented the staff report. He provided background on the property. He explained the property is being nominated under Standard 3, Design/Construction, and meets all seven of the Secretary of Interior aspects of integrity. He reviewed the role of the Commission and the applicable codes. Applicant Presentation Ms. Medina addressed the Applicant presentation. She stated the desire to honor the memory of Lois Struble. She said that while this property is being recognized for architecture, the importance of working-class people like Lois Struble to the history of Fort Collins as well. Public Input Heather Navratil, a neighbor of the property, spoke to the Commission, sharing her memories of Lois Struble. She talked about other aspects of the historic homes in the neighborhood and stressed the importance of preservation. Commission Questions and Discussion Mr. Murray said the research was very well done. Ms. Nelsen said it was a very well-preserved home and agreed it was significant under Standard 3. Ms. Wallace asked Staff about other post WWII properties designated in the City. Mr. Bertolini said there are a few, but they are rare. Mr. Murray asked about the possibility of creating a historic district. Ms. Medina explained her efforts to generate interest in a district among the residents of the neighborhood and commented about the varied architectural styles represented there. Mr. Murray commented that after WWII, with many soldiers going to school through the GI Bill, many people turned garages into apartments, and the basement apartment was something new. He also pointed out Ms. Stroud’s husband being in uniform in the photo. He added that the contractor may have been a mason due to all the brick, and stated it is a beautiful building. Acting Chair Wallace stated the property does seem to meet all seven aspects of integrity. Landmark Preservation Commission Page 3 February 19, 2020 Mr. Murray commented that the garage door was probably original. Ms. Medina stated that it was. Mr. Murray stated that the energy savings resulting from preserving the building, the significance of the neighborhood and growth patterns and keeping it a single-family neighborhood are all ways that this will promote the policies and purposes of the City. Commission Deliberation Ms. Nelsen moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend that City Council adopt an ordinance to designate the Lois Struble Property at 129 N. McKinley Avenue, as a Fort Collins Landmark, finding that this property is eligible for its significance to Fort Collins under Standard 3, design/construction, as supported by the analysis provided in the staff report dated February 19, 2020, and that the property clearly conveys this significance through all seven aspects of integrity; and finding also that the designation of this property will promote the policies and purposes of the City as specified in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. Ms. Simpkins seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Chair Dunn returned to the meeting. Ms. Wallace excused herself from the rest of the meeting. 4. 720 W PROSPECT (EMMA BROWN/SUSAN WINTER HOUSE) – DESIGN REVIEW DESCRIPTION: Exterior rehabilitation work (window rehab, in-kind stucco repair and paint, rehab wood barge rafters and rafter tails, replacement asphalt roof, new half- round gutters and downspouts) on the landmarked residence. Construction of a new three-story apartment building behind the historic residences. APPLICANT: Ian Shuff, alm2s; CSU Research Foundation /Maximo Development Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report. She explained the Commission is the decision maker for the design review but will make a recommendation to the decision maker for the development review, which is why they are two separate agenda items. Ms. Bzdek provided background information on the property and discussed the proposed rehabilitation work. She stated the role of the Commission is to consider the request for a certificate of appropriateness and either approve or deny the application for alterations to this particular building which is part of the overall development project. Applicant Presentation Mr. Shuff, alm2s Architects, stated the applicant intends to rehabilitate the exterior of this property and convert the interior into two one-bedroom apartments. He discussed proposed changes and showed slides of existing conditions and proposed plans. He detailed window conditions and provided a window rehabilitation schedule. Public Input None. Commission Questions Mr. Murray asked if the stucco has been painted. Mr. Shuff replied in the affirmative and stated the proposed treatment has enough elasticity to allow a bit of movement. He stated painting the stucco provides a sealant and stated he does not plan to install a weather barrier from the inside. Ms. Nelsen asked about the insulation plan for the walls. Mr. Shuff replied it will likely be blown-in without a vapor barrier. Ms. Nelsen asked about the visible cold joint between the patch and existing stucco. Mr. Shuff discussed the complexity of the stucco repair noting the repair will be obvious; however, it is on a non- dominant elevation. Commission Discussion Chair Dunn requested the Commission discuss how this work meets the standards. Mr. Murray discussed the installation of the vinyl windows, which are currently functioning, and suggested the wood Landmark Preservation Commission Page 4 February 19, 2020 sashes should eventually be replaced at least once the vinyl windows fail. Ms. Simpkins asked if the owner would be required to return to the Commission for replacement of those vinyl windows. Ms. Bzdek replied in the affirmative. Ms. Simpkins and Ms. Nelsen agreed the vinyl windows do not need to be replaced for now. Chair Dunn asked Mr. Shuff if the hopper windows would be rehabilitated. Mr. Shuff replied in the affirmative. Chair Dunn requested the Commission address spatial issues. Ms. Bredehoft stated she likes the relationship of the backyard better than when they saw this last year. Ms. Simpkins agreed. Ms. Bredehoft commented that the driveway placement was also improved since last year’s plan. Chair Dunn agreed. Mr. Murray stated he was glad to see the rehabilitation of the hopper windows. Chair Dunn reviewed other standards. Ms. Nelsen requested input regarding the visible stucco patching. Mr. Murray recommended the applicant get a historic mason to get the best match. Mr. Knierim noted the fix is necessary. Ms. Simpkins acknowledged the repairs must be made and stated they will not likely be visible to most people. Chair Dunn said most people wouldn’t see it and it would be a good solution. Ms. Bredehoft agreed. Ms. Bredehoft commented on the trees shown in the site plan and suggested keeping them far enough from the house to avoid future issues. She also cautioned the applicant to be mindful of the overspray from irrigation. Ms. Nelson stated this is a good use of the property and she appreciated the work that went into the design. Ms. Bzdek commented on items that may ultimately be conditions of approval, including stucco issues and future vinyl window replacement. Commission Deliberation Ms. Simpkins moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the plans and specifications for alterations to the Emma Brown/Susan Winter House at 720 West Prospect as presented, finding that the proposed work meets the Secretary of the Interior standards, understanding that the applicant may keep the existing vinyl windows that are currently in place, that they investigate the cause of the stucco damage and minimize the potential for future stucco damage after the proposed repair is complete, that they rehabilitate the existing hopper windows that are currently in the basement, and that more appropriate wood sash windows replace the existing vinyl windows when they fail. Ms. Bredehoft seconded. Ms. Nelson asked if it is within the Commission's purview to require the window replacement as outlined in the motion. Mr. Yatabe replied that is within the Commission's purview to the extent the Commission agrees that the current windows are not in keeping with the historic nature of the property. The motion passed 6-0. 5. APEX HAVEN APARTMENTS (PDP190017) – DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DESCRIPTION: Rehabilitation work on the windows, stucco, chimney, wood fascia; a replacement asphalt roof; and the construction of a new three-story apartment building behind the designated landmark at 720 W Prospect and the abutting residence at 730 W Prospect. APPLICANT: Ian Shuff, alm2s; CSU Research Foundation (CSURF) Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report and described the proposed project. She outlined the Commission's role and detailed the proposed changes to the historic home. Applicant Presentation Mr. Shuff discussed the existing condition and proposed renovations for the former 730 West Prospect house. He stated the building will include two units, one on the upper half and one on the lower half. Landmark Preservation Commission Page 5 February 19, 2020 He detailed the window treatment plan, noting most of the windows are original, and discussed the need for stucco repair and patching. Mr. Shuff discussed the recent contextual changes to the neighborhood noting the proposed project serves as a transition between the 5-story apartments and single-story homes. Shelley Lamastra, Russell Mills Studio, stated this property is in a high-density zone district and, though five stories are allowed, the proposal is for three stories to help contextualize the existing homes on the site. She discussed changes to the design of the project since the last meeting noting the access will still be off Prospect but will no longer serve a podium parking garage, but just the nine parking spaces between the buildings, five of which will be permitted for the two homes on the site. She detailed pedestrian connections and plans to protect as many evergreen trees along Prospect as possible. Ms. Lamastra discussed the work to restructure the property to move the outdoor gathering area closer to the multi-family units and away from the single-family residential uses to the east. She also noted all the landscaping surrounding the homes will be drip-irrigated so as to ensure the stucco is not sprayed by sprinklers. She went on to discuss other landscaping features. Mr. Shuff discussed the reduction in building mass and the south-facing court and gathering plaza. He stated the roof pitch and dormers on the apartment building have been changed since the Commission last saw this plan and he showed materials and color samples. He also spoke about stepping down the building to relate more to the single-family homes. Public Input None. Commission Questions Regarding the House Ms. Bredehoft asked about plans for the trash enclosure. Mr. Shuff replied they could use stucco, brick, or siding, whichever is less impactful to the residences. Ms. Bredehoft suggested it should be more similar to the Apex project. Mr. Murray asked about the rough opening of the window that is being removed to put in casement. Mr. Shuff replied the goal is to keep the opening the same size and clarified two windows will be removed. Mr. Shuff described the color palette that is planned to be used for the houses and their window sashes as well as the materials and colors for the new building. Chair Dunn asked about the removal of the stoop and subsequent stucco patching. Mr. Shuff replied the stucco will likely need repair and discussed options for patching. Mr. Murray commented on the poor stucco patch job that is present on the west side. Commission Discussion Regarding the House Chair Dunn noted the Commission will be making a recommendation on this house rather than a decision; therefore, a clear recommendation will help the decision maker. Mr. Murray commented on leaving the egress window as is and commended the idea of having the stucco porch in front of the door. He asked if there would be a way to securely store the two windows that are being removed so they could be replaced at some point in the future. He questioned whether the proposed door would offer a false sense of history. Ms. Nelsen questioned whether the door is overly ornamental and suggested it should be less prominent. Chair Dunn suggested researching a plainer door with a large enough window at the top to keep the pattern of the three windows across. Mr. Murray asked if there is an issue with the age of significance noting the concrete in the back is not historic. Ms. Bzdek confirmed staff does not believe that is historic. Chair Dunn commented on the improvement of the relationship between the two houses and noted the setting has already significantly changed. Mr. Knierim stated using a historic mason would be especially important on this building. Chair Dunn asked if the door and window on the house are both wood. Mr. Shuff replied in the affirmative. Landmark Preservation Commission Page 6 February 19, 2020 Commission Questions Regarding the Infill Mr. Murray asked if the new detention pond is a grassy usable space. Mr. Shuff replied it will likely only hold water in the event of a large storm event. He noted the pond will be lined and there will be a perimeter drain on the north side of the house. Ms. Lamastra stated the detention pond will have a 30" retaining wall and will not really be a usable space. She stated there will be some cobble in the bottom with potentially some seeded area on top. Ms. Bredehoft stated it is a huge improvement and she appreciated the Commission’s suggestions being incorporated. Chair Dunn asked why lap siding is being used on the building. Mr. Shuff replied it was incorporated on Apex and this will allow a relation to that project. He also commented on the use of materials to break up the massing. Commission Discussion Regarding the Infill Chair Dunn directed the Commission to examine the standards in Land Use Code Section 3.4.7. Regarding massing and articulation, Ms. Simpkins stated it is a big improvement from the previous design. Mr. Murray commended the height step down. Chair Dunn commended the parking design stating it enabled more creativity with the building massing. Regarding materials, Ms. Nelsen asked if the brick is a full veneer. Mr. Shuff replied it is a full veneer with an air space. Mr. Murray commented the use of brick is more effective in bringing the building's height down and there is still an effective use of stucco, which is the predominant material in the houses. Ms. Bzdek clarified Code language stating each new material shall create compatibility by meeting at least two criteria, including type and color. Mr. Murray stated the brick aids in massing and in differentiating the new building from the older homes. He also stated the lap siding is not all that noticeable. Mr. Knierim noted the roof material also ties the buildings together. Ms. Simpkins commented on this Code section not making sense for stucco being the predominant material on the historic resources as the first story of the new building should not be stucco. Ms. Nelsen stated the proposed construction respects the Code section requirement in spirit as it does a good job of referencing the predominant materials. Other members agreed. Chair Dunn stated the windows meet Code criteria and the rooflines are drawn from the historic buildings as a reference which is an improvement over the previous design. Chair Dunn commented on the parking and trees which help keep the hobby farm feel. Commission Deliberation Mr. Murray moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to the Decision Maker approval of the development proposal for Apex-Haven Apartments, finding it is in compliance with the standards contained in Land Use Code section 3.4.7 for the following reasons: • The project meets the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. • The project design reflects massing, building materials, and façade details that are compatible with the historic context, creates a visual relationship between the historic architecture and the new construction, and meets the requirements outlined in Table 1 of Section 3.4.7. • The proposed design protects the visibility of nearby historic resources. Mr. Knierim seconded. Ms. Nelson appreciated the work that was put into this design and said it was well done. Chair Dunn commented that the two houses provide context for each other. She stated the changes roofline, addition of the greenery and openings, and the change in massing were excellent. The motion passed 6-0.