Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 10/07/1992Landmark Preservation Commission Regular Meeting Minutes October 7, 1992 Council Liaison: Loren Maxey Staff Liaison: Joe Frank SUMMARY OF MEETING: The Commission approved the August 5, 1992 minutes, as submitted. A conceptual review of an arch to join #5 and #7 Old Town Square was discussed. The "Northeast Transportation Study" was presented. The Commission voted to endorse alternative #3 of the Northeast Transportation Plan to City Council. The Commission passed a motion that staff prepare a slide presentation to be presented with the HRPP citizen review process. The Commission voted to adopt a local landmark designation plaque style as the style for future designations. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Commission Chair Jennifer Carpenter called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m., 281 North College Avenue. Secretary Charlotte Plaut called the roll. Commission members Jennifer Carpenter, Bud Frick, Richard Hill, Brian Janonis, Kirk Jensen, James Tanner and Ruth Weatherford were present. Carol Tunner and Joe Frank represented staff. GUESTS: Scott Smith and Brad Page, representatives of Coopersmith Brewing Company, Glenn Konen, architect from Architectural Studios, Peter Graham, business owner of Pasta J's, Todd Lund, property manager for Foxfire Property Management, Bob Baun, Coloradoan reporter, Rick Ensdorff, Director of Transportation Planning, and Rheba Massey, local historian, were guests. APPROVAL OF THE AUGUST 5, 1992 MINUTES: Mr. Tanner moved to approve the September 2, 1992 minutes, as submitted. Mr. Frick seconded the motion. The motion to approve the September 2 minutes, as submitted, passed 7-0. Ayes: Carpenter, Frick, Hill, Janonis, Jensen, Tanner and Weatherford. CURRENT ITEMS: #547 Old Town SquareCoolac mith Pub and Brewing Bridging -Joining the glass sheds between the two buildings, The applicant proposes to join two existing glass sheds (located at #5 and #7 Old Town Square) with two arch structures, four roof bridges, and also to install new entry doors to the east glass shed, Suite #114. Landmark Preservation Commission October 7, 1992 Page 2 Mr. Brad Page of Coppersmith's Brewing Company explained that they would like to expand their retail service capacity by utilizing the old Comedy Works space (Suite #114 on #7 Old Town Square) but state liquor licensing requirements prohibit them from obtaining an additional liquor license for a second retail outlet; therefore, the present Coopersmith's must be physically attached to the old Comedy Works structure. Mr. Page noted that Foxfire Property Management owns the two structures and Coopersmith's is the lessee. Mr. Page stated that a glass walkway is not acceptable to the state, but the state seems comfortable with the proposed arch concept. Mr. Page cited the historic Trimble Court arch as a precedent to define space entries. Ms. Tunner stated that the area to be defined by the arch is 20 feet wide by approximately 80 feet long. Mr. Tanner asked how high the arch will be. Mr. Konen stated that the arch will be about 7 1/2 feet high. Ms. Weatherford inquired why four roof bridges are proposed. Mr. Page explained that one of the roof bridges will actually be a functional chase to pump beer ingredients from the brewery to #7 Old Town Square. Mr. Frank commented that only one chase is needed, but the applicants feel that four chases provide visual balance. Ms. Tunner asked what the diameter of the chase will be. Mr. Page responded that a 1-1/2 inch diameter is required, but the applicant plans to use 5-inch diameter pipe. Mr. Frank inquired if the Old Town kiosk will remain. Mr. Page stated it will but it may be moved. Mr. Page noted that the proposed changes will leave the same amount of public walk space as currently exists; the space will be down the middle, rather than on the sides as the existing benches will be moved against the glass sheds. Landmark Preservation Commission October 7, 1992 Page 3 Mr. Smith stated that the Downtown Development Authority requires the brewery to provide public access before it will grant the land to Foxfire Property Management. Mr. Tanner inquired if the State Liquor Board requires four chases. Mr. Konen answered that they are not required by the state. Mr. Page explained that using only one appeared "out of kilter." Mr. Frick expressed a concern for people hanging on the bridges because they are so low. Also, Mr. Frick asked how the City and the Fort Collins Fire Department will view the connected buildings. Mr. Konen replied that the connection should not matter to the City or the fire department, but he will check to be certain. Mr. Lund commented that the State Liquor Board will see the arches as connecting the two buildings. Mr. Page noted that this is a new concern for the Liquor Board and that brew pub laws in general are new. Mr. Frank asked if the business will be called Coopersmith's on both sides. Mr. Page said it will. Mr. Hill asked if the state will consider the alley a premise licensed for liquor. Mr. Page responded that the DDA asked for a condition making it impossible for the alley to ever become a beer garden. Mr. Lund stated that the DDA will set conditions in the lease that the area will not be a beer garden; there will never be beer served in the alleyway between the two glass sheds. Mr. Frank asked if the chases will be metal. Mr. Page responded that they will be standing seam metal like the current shed roofs. Mr. Tanner expressed a concern for the idea of four chases. He stated that four chases appear too busy. Landmark Preservation Commission October 7, 1992 Page 4 Ms. Weatherford expressed the same concern for the chases as for a previous proposal to erect a permanent lattice covering for the stage area. Old Town was intended to have a feeling of openness, and there should be no impedance to traffic or visual obstructions of historic buildings. She asked if it is necessary to have four chases. Mr. Page responded that four chases are not needed, but four seem to tie the buildings together. Mr. Frank asked the applicants if they plan on installing any additional signage. Mr. Page stated that the state would like to see "Coopersmith's" somewhere in the arch. Mr. Lund stated that Foxfire wants all the tenants to feel good about a defined entrance to Old Town. He said that the archway and moving the kiosk closer to the downtown parking garage would help visitors to know where they are and what there is to do. Mr. Tanner supported the idea of moving the kiosk, but expressed concern for keeping open lines of sight for the historic buildings in the Square. Mr. Smith stated that the applicants are open to a design using only one or two crossbars in the archways. Mr. Konen stated that smaller diameter bars can be used. Ms. Carpenter said she would like an arch at each end, but would like to omit the bridge/chases. Ms. Carpenter asked for citizen input. Peter Graham, business owner of Pasta J's, stated that he had held some misconceptions about the proposed arch. He thought that the arch would be 20-feet wide, over the entire span, not just down the middle. Mr. Graham said the design he had seen before would leave more visibility for his sign. Mr. Frick stated that access to the Square would be improved if the kiosk were removed from its present location. Ms. Carpenter inquired if anyone objected to the arch entries. No one objected to the arches. Ms. Weatherford advised the applicants to retain as much openness as possible, as the Guidelines recommend. Landmark Preservation Commission October 7, 1992 Page 5 Mr. Frick drew a rough sketch of changes on the scale drawing and passed it around for Commission members to comment. Mr. Tanner commented that he does not object to the arches, but cautioned the applicants to keep openness and visibility. Mr. Frank stated that the Planning Department will work with the applicants to help them meet Liquor Board requirements. Mr. Konen stated that he will make the Coopersmith logo as small as the Liquor Board will allow and the Old Town logo as large as the Liquor Board will allow. DISCUSSION: Presentation of "Northeast Area Transportation Stuffy" Mr. Frank introduced Rick Ensdorff, Director of Transportation Planning, who made a presentation on the Northeast Area Transportation Study. Mr. Ensdorff displayed two boards illustrating the majority and minority recommendations for a bypass for Highways 14 and 287 around the center of downtown Fort Collins. Mr. Ensdorff stated that both the majority and the minority agree that some sort of bypass will eventually be needed. Alternative 1, supported by the minority, proposes to spend as little money as possible on immediate improvements and conserve funds for a later bypass. The minority recommends improving and enlarging existing intersections on the present route but would probably impact some historic structure. Alternative 2, realignment of Highway 14 to south of the Sugar Beet Factory on East Vine Drive, was dismissed because of high cost and too much impact. The majority (supporting Alternative 3) does not believe that existing traffic justifies a bypass north of Douglas Road; perhaps this will be necessary in 20 years. However, existing traffic does justify a downtown bypass for trucks immediately. The majority recommends working with the County to secure a northern corridor, free from development, so that 20 years from now, the bypass can be built without much impact. Alternative 3, supported by the majority, realigns Lemay Avenue east of Andersonville and Alta Vista and proposes an overpass over the railroad tracks along East Vine Drive. Mr. Tanner inquired how much opposition exists to the two plans. Landmark Preservation Commission October 7, 1992 Page 6 Mr. Ensdorff replied that he does not know how strong opposition to either plan may be, but everyone seems to want to do something. He noted that 1,000 trucks per day use the existing route and the constant vibration is a detriment to the Old Town buildings. Mr. Hill expressed a concern for shaking building foundations and the aesthetic integrity of the riverway. The Commission agreed that they must consider the alternatives with a concern for impact on historic structures. Mr. Ensdorff commented that Alternative 1 would change appearances less and would cost less money. Mr. Ensdorff noted that City Council will make a decision at the December 17 meeting, so Commission members have time for input. Commission members agreed that Alternative 3, keeping a corridor open for when it is needed in 20 or 25 years, is preferable. Mr. Hill inquired if the City can insure that trucks will use the #3 route, rather than the existing routes. Mr. Ensdorff responded that there will be few curb cuts, or points of access, to existing routes and the bypass will be designated State Highway 14. He pointed out that truckers will use designated highways. Mr. Hill inquired if the City can place limits on tonnage. Mr. Ensdorff responded that it can, after City routes are off the state highway system. W. Tanner made a motion that the Commission endorse Alternative 3 of the Northeast Area Transportation Plan to City Council. Mr. Jensen seconded the motion. The motion to endorse Alternative 3 of the Northeast Area Transportation Plan to City Council passed, 7-0. Ayes: Carpenter, Frick, Hill, Janonis, Jensen, Tanner and Weatherford. HRPP - Citizen Review Process. Roles and Responsibilities. Ms. Carpenter and Ms. Massey stated that they have concerns about presenting some sections of the HRPP, as Mr. Frank revised it, for public review. Landmark Preservation Commission October 7, 1992 Page 7 Ms. Massey stated that the current wording of the section of the relation of the HRPP to the Comprehensive Plan could lead the public to believe that there are no weaknesses in the Comprehensive Plan, as it addresses historical preservation. She suggested that the wording must be more specific on the weaknesses of the Plan in relation to historical preservation. Ms. Massey stated that the recommendations of the consultant must be presented in the HRPP. This is why a consultant was hired. Ms. Weatherford stated that the revised wording is not specific enough and is not oriented to the preservation needs of our community. The Commission had requested guidelines, for the public that are separate from LPC opinions. Mr. Frank noted that a good policy base exists in the Comprehensive Plan; the need, according to the consultants, is to implement that policy. Ms. Massey stated that the consultant included strengths and weaknesses in the draft; the public must be aware of both strengths and weaknesses in the plan. Mr. Frank responded that the message to City Council should be that policy is in place; the Comprehensive Plan already includes historic preservation. Mr. Frank commented that it is appropriate to begin the Public Review process now and ask for changes before writing the final draft. Mr. Frank stated that the LPC must hold a work session to go over the HRPP in detail before presenting it to City Council. He emphasized that Council would like to see something very soon. Ms. Carpenter agreed and stated that the LPC must work on the HRPP, even if a special session is required. Mr. Frank proposed completing the final draft by January, sending it to Planning and Zoning in February. The draft can go to City Council in March. Ms. Weatherford noted that the HRPP is a huge document, without emotional impact. She doubts anyone will read it. She proposed a slide presentation to accompany the document. She asked who will prepare the slide show. Ms. Weatherford made a motion that staff start immediately to research a slide presentation to be presented at the same time as the HRPP Citizen Review. Mr. Frick seconded the motion. The motion that staff begin immediately to research a slide presentation passed, 7-0. Ayes: Carpenter, Frick, Hill, Janonis, Jensen, Tanner and Weatherford. Landmark Preservation Commission October 7, 1992 Page 8 Ms. Carpenter asked if the slide presentation is necessary before getting the HRPP adopted by City Council. Ms. Massey believes this is necessary. She noted that demonstrating public support has always been a problem. Mr. Frank suggested that he could prepare an executive summary of the HRPP and write a slide presentation, with help from a subcommittee. Ms. Weatherford, Mr. Jensen and Mr. Tanner volunteered to serve as a subcommittee. Mr. Frank inquired if the Commission wants to target the presentation to affected interests or attempt to raise a ground swell of support. The Commission responded that affected interests should be targeted. Ms. Massey inquired about the role of the consultant in public hearings. Mr. Tanner suggested that the consultant could write an executive summary. Mr. Frank suggested that the consultant may not be the best public representative. Staff and Commission members would better represent the HRPP. OTHER BUSINESS: City Council Ceremony (October 20) Honoring the Designations of Trolley Barn and 112 S. College Avenue - Discussion of Plaques. Ms. Tunner reported that she has obtained prices for plaques to present at the City Council ceremony honoring the local landmark designations of the Trolley Barn and 112 S. College. Mr. Frank responded that the plaques chosen should serve as a model for future plaques; therefore, the Commission should be certain that they have chosen the plaque they want. He stated that Planning can afford to pay for the first two plaques. Ms. Tunner described an exterior plaque, with an historical description, presently used in all of the Old Town Plaza. She noted that the use of this plaque has spread to Linden Street historic structure. v Landmark Preservation Commission October 7, 1992 Page 9 Ms. Weatherford made a motion to adopt the plaques Ms. Tunner described as a model for all future plaques. Mr. Frick seconded the motion. The motion to adopt the plaques described as a model for all future plaques passed, 7-0. Ayes: Carpenter, Frick, Hill, Janonis, Jensen, Tanner and Weatherford. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Ms. Tunner announced that Wayne Latham, former historic preservation intern, has invited the Commission to hold a LPC work session at the Andrews' House. She suggested that the Commission hold the October 21 work session there and recognize Rae Ann Todd and Rheba Massey (retiring LPC member) with plaques for their service to the Commission. The Commission agreed to hold the October 21 work session at the Andrews' House. Mr. Frick made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Jensen seconded the motion. The motion to adjourn the meeting passed, 7-0. Ayes: Carpenter, Frick, Hill, Janonis, Jensen, Tanner and Weatherford. Ms. Carpenter adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m. Submitted by Charlotte Plaut, Secretary.