Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 11/12/2014Landmark Preservation Commission Page 1 November 12, 2014 Ron Sladek, Chair Doug Ernest, Vice Chair Maren Bzdek Conference Room A Meg Dunn 281 North College Avenue Kristin Gensmer Fort Collins, Colorado Dave Lingle Pat Tvede Alexandra Wallace Belinda Zink Laurie Kadrich Karen McWilliams Josh Weinberg Gino Campana Staff Liaison, CDNS Director Preservation Planner Preservation Planner Council Liaison 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 November 12, 2014 Minutes  CALL TO ORDER Chair Sladek called the meeting to order at 5:31 p.m.  ROLL CALL PRESENT: Tvede, Gensmer, Zink, Lingle, Ernest, Bzdek, Dunn, Wallace, Sladek ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: McWilliams, Weinberg, Schiager  PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None  DISCUSSION AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 8, 2014 REGULAR MEETING. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the October 8, 2014 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. Landmark Preservation Commission Approved by Commission at their December 10, 2014 meeting. City of Fort Collins Page 2 Ms. Tvede moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the minutes of the October 8, 2014 regular meeting. Ms. Gensmer seconded. The motion passed 9-0. [Timestamp: 5:34 p.m.] 2. DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW PROCESS: FINAL HEARING 920 LAPORTE AVENUE PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a Final Hearing for a proposed alteration to 920 Laporte Avenue. The Applicant is proposing to remove the existing roof of the residence’s front elevation and add a second story. APPLICANT: Ben Loeffler, Owner Staff Report Mr. Weinberg presented the staff report. He reviewed the options available to the Commission for this item, as stated in the Staff Analysis section of the staff report. Applicant Presentation Dwight Sailer with HighCraft Builders spoke to the Commission on behalf of the Applicant. He stated that he is the contractor for the project, and also worked with the Applicant on the design. He reviewed the design and plans with the Commission. The property owner, Ben Loeffler, addressed the Commission. He mentioned that this process has been long. He noted that the addition was necessary to accommodate his growing family. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion A Member inquired about whether the Applicant had taken advantage of the design assistance recommended during the Demo/Alt Review process. Staff stated that it was offered, but the Applicant used their own plans. Chair Sladek pointed out two places in the staff report where there was a typo that should be fixed to state that a second story would be added. He also commented that the form used for the independent review by Jason Marmor is much more geared toward eligibility for the National Register than it is for local landmark eligibility. He recommended that in the future Staff work with the consultants used for independent review to focus more of the discussion on local eligibility. A Member asked for clarification as to whether the large dormer shown on the front of the building in the altered photos on pages 46 and 47 of the packet would be there, since the drawing on page 57 does not include it. The Applicant said they are including the large dormer. Commission Deliberation Mr. Lingle moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the demolition/alteration of 920 Laporte Avenue on final hearing based on the provisions of Section 14-72 of the Municipal Code. Ms. Zink seconded. Members expressed concerns about setting a precedent in terms of future pop-ups within the historic districts, and asked Staff what could be done to prevent this in the future. Staff explained that a code change could be required, and could be done with sufficient support from Council and the community. Members noted that while they were troubled by this alteration, the Applicant had met all the requirements in the code, so the only option other than approval would be to go to Council with a non-consensual designation, which would be unlikely to pass. Staff stated said the only example of a truly non-consensual designation that actually went against the wishes of the owners would be the Old Post Office. City of Fort Collins Page 3 Some Members said they didn’t think they had an option in this case, since the Applicant had met the requirements, and they did not have a code-based rationale to deny the request. Mr. Sladek stated he would not support the motion. Members were in agreement that the Demo/Alt Review process needed to be revised, and suggested they add that to the Commission’s work plan. While the Members are sympathetic to the owner’s need for space, they pointed out that the lot was big enough that a better option for expansion could have been reached that would have preserved the front façade, such as a rear addition rather than a pop-up. Motion passed 8-1, with Mr. Sladek dissenting. [Timestamp: 5:59 p.m.] 3. 242 LINDEN STREET - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW; PROPOSED NEW FACADE PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Applicant, Blue Ocean Enterprises, Inc., is seeking a Final Design Review from the Commission regarding their plans to construct a new façade on the building at 242 Linden Street, formerly the Sunset Events Center. APPLICANT: Brandon Grebe, Blue Ocean Enterprises, Inc.; Jeffery Everett, The Architect’s Studio Staff Report Mr. Weinberg presented the staff report. Applicant Presentation Mr. Grebe from Blue Ocean Enterprises, Inc., the property owner, introduced himself and the architect. Mr. Everett with The Architect’s Studio gave a brief presentation. He said that absent any historic evidence, they chose to conduct some selective demolition to see if they could uncover some of the historic fabric of the building. The conclusion of their exploration was that given the lack of historic evidence, they don’t feel the property qualifies for a restoration effort. They believe their design meets the intent of the Old Town Design Standards. The design incorporates elements similar in nature to what is seen in the district, in deference to the character of the other buildings, but with a little more modern representation. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion Members asked whether there were any changes since the Commission last saw the design. The Applicant stated the design has two options, one with awnings and one without, and they would like to have approval for both. The Applicant clarified that the transom windows would still be in place. The Commission had previously discussed the design at a work session and was supportive of both options as long as the transoms were there. Members inquired about signage. The Applicant stated they would expect the tenant would have signage that would conform to the design guidelines, and would likely be vertical with the word “galvanize” in lower case. Chair Sladek asked whether any Members had any concerns about compliance with standards and impact to the district. There were no concerns articulated. Members expressed that the design was complementary to other buildings in the area without mimicking them, and that it fit in well with other nicely rehabbed buildings nearby. Commission Deliberation Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the final design for the proposed new façade at 242 Linden Street, the former Sunset Events Center building, finding that it meets the review criteria under Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code, Approval of Proposed Work. Ms. Gensmer seconded. Mr. Lingle suggested an amendment to the motion referencing both designs, with or without the awnings. Mr. Ernest amended his motion accordingly. City of Fort Collins Page 4 Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the final design for the proposed new façade at 242 Linden Street, the former Sunset Events Center building, finding that either option, with or without the awnings, meet the review criteria under Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code, Approval of Proposed Work. Ms. Gensmer seconded. Motion passed 9-0. [Timestamp: 6:20 p.m.] 4. LANDMARK RESIDENCES ON MOUNTAIN, FINAL RECOMMENDATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Final Recommendation to Decision Maker on the Landmark Residences on Mountain Avenue. APPLICANT: Vaught Fry Larson Associates Ms. Dunn recused herself due to a conflict of interest. Staff Report Ms. McWilliams presented the staff report. Applicant Presentation Frank Vaught and Andy Goldman gave the Applicant presentation. Mr. Vaught thanked the Commission for providing clear direction at previous reviews, and stated that there were no major changes since the last time they came before the Commission. Mr. Goldman interjected that they had actually added roof decks that protrude about 10’ in front of the gables. Mr. Vaught pointed out that from a streetscape standpoint the gable is significantly back from the façade of the building. Other changes include using a hip roof on the Shields Street end, and going to a two-story on the east end. The biggest change was the lowering of the two center units from two and a half stories down to two stories. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion Members asked the Applicant to clarify the setback of the gables. The Applicant stated the gable lines up with the adjacent house to the east. The Applicant also described the rear staggering effect. Members asked whether the front of building was even with the porch or the main body of the building, and the Applicant said it was even with the main body. Members asked whether the plan needed modifications for setbacks. The Applicant explained the setback was contextual with neighborhood. Clark Mapes, City Planner, said Staff views the setback modification as minor, and that this part of Mountain Avenue is not considered a major arterial. A Member noted that no site plan was included in the presentation. He expressed his approval of the design changes with regard to mass, scale and roofline, but said he would like the Planning and Zoning Board to take a close look at the setback, since they will have a site plan to reference and the Commission did not. Another Member felt the fact that the property is on a corner mitigates the impact of the reduced setback. Chair Sladek noted that the Members support the plan provided the Planning and Zoning Board makes their own determination regarding the setback. City of Fort Collins Page 5 Commission Deliberation Mr. Lingle moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to the Planning and Zoning Board approval of the final plan for the Landmark Residences on Mountain Avenue as presented to the Landmark Preservation Commission finding that the project design is in substantial compliance with applicable parts of Chapter 14 of the City Code, particularly the review criteria in Section 14-48b which contains in part the Secretary of the Interior Standards and the City’s Land Use Code, principally Section 3.4.7. As part of this recommendation, the Commission asks that the Planning and Zoning Board pay particular attention to the setbacks along Mountain Avenue and make a determination if they find that they are adequately respectful of the adjacent single-family residences along Mountain Avenue. Ms. Tvede seconded. Motion passed 9-0. Ms. Dunn returned to the meeting. [Timestamp: 6:44 p.m.] 5. SIGNAGE COMMEMORATING THE BUTTON HOUSE, 711 REMINGTON STREET PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Button House, located at 711 Remington Street, was demolished in January 2014. As part of the mitigation for the loss of this historic building, the City has committed to recognizing the dwelling in an appropriate manner. APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Division Staff Report Ms. McWilliams provided the staff report. Staff is recommending a granite stone paver. Applicant Presentation None Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion Members asked whether the City would pay for the paver. Staff indicated that was the case, and that the installation would be part of the street maintenance program. Staff also noted that the City would like to have this completed in a timely manner. Members asked about other options considered. Staff explained that pedestals were considered, but they tend to attract vandalism. A plaque on the building is another option, but that becomes problematic to be seen from the public right-of-way. Another option is signage placed on other equipment nearby, such as a Transfort bench, but such equipment can be moved and replaced, so it is less permanent than a paver. Members asked whether this kind of commemoration is common for demolished buildings, and whether this would set a precedent. Staff indicated that this was an unusual case. Members discussed the small Public Service building demolished to accommodate Max. In that case, signage was incorporated into an Art in Public Places installation, which one Member described as an industrial-looking pylon. Staff noted that there was a great deal of community and Council concern over the Button House demolition, resulting in a push for commemoration. Members discussed how they could word a statement on a paver that would explain what happened to the Button House. Members conversed about the difficulty of labeling the style of the house. Members were concerned that a paver would not do justice to the story of the house and what took place with its demolition, and several expressed a preference for a website to discuss the property in more detail. Staff clarified that the neighbors clearly wanted a physical marker. City of Fort Collins Page 6 Commission Deliberation The Commission decided to form a subcommittee to craft the wording for the paver. Ms. Bzdek, Ms. Gensmer and Ms. Wallace volunteered to serve on the subcommittee. Chair Sladek offered to research the original owners and early period of the building. He asked the subcommittee to notify him when they plan to meet so he could set aside time for the research in advance. He also noted that the City Engineer would have the specifications on the Linden Street pavers and who fabricated them. The Commission would like a proposal from the subcommittee by the next meeting. [Timestamp: 7:18 p.m.] 6. 2015 WORK PLAN DISCUSSION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Discussion and Adoption of the Commission’s 2015 Work Plan Commission Questions and Discussion Chair Sladek asked Staff to update the year throughout the plan, and then led a discussion of the plan based on the applicable Key Strategic Outcomes.  Community & Neighborhood Livability – Members would like to add a review of the Demo/Alt Review process under 1.2. The Commission decided to leave the Loomis Addition item in, since it is not finished.  Recreation & Culture – Under 2.4, Members would like to add development of a signage program for marking landmarks which are still standing. Members also agreed to add an item for looking after resources located in City-owned open spaces, the cemetery and the river corridor.  Economic Health – With regard to the expansion of the Old Town Historic District discussed in 3.8 (Sense of Place), Members discussed conducting community outreach about what Old Town means to people. Staff noted that the Planning Department was looking at updating the Eastside/Westside and Downtown plans. They intend to conduct a good deal of outreach, and there would be potential for overlap of people interested in the same projects. It might be a good idea to consider having a forum or open house before a neighborhood meeting or event and piggyback off of something already established. Members noted that the Historic District isn’t defined by public opinion, but by the history. Others pointed out that public outreach has more to do with gaining public support and buy-in for an expanded district, and taking advantage of an educational opportunity. Members would like advance notice when the Planning Department has meetings or events coming up on these plans.  Environmental Health – No additions.  High-Performing Government – No additions. Commission Deliberation Ms. Bzdek moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission adopt the 2015 Work Plan as discussed at the November 12, 2014 meeting. The Landmark Preservation Commission directs Staff to amend the draft Work Plan according to the discussion. Ms. Tvede seconded. Motion passed 9-0.  OTHER BUSINESS Staff shared that the City Planners for the Eastside/Westside Neighborhood Plan and Design Guidelines asked whether the Commission would like to appoint one member to serve on the interview panel for the selection of the project consultants. The timeline is likely early December, and would probably involve a full day or two half days. Ms. Zink volunteered to serve on the panel. Ms. Dunn asked whether the DDA was coming to the next meeting to speak about the Old Town renovations, kiosk and stage. Staff will ask when they might come. Ms. Bzdek asked a process question about why Chair Sladek voted against the motion for the Laporte property, and inquired whether they were required to have a code-based rationale when City of Fort Collins Page 7 voting “no”. Chair Sladek felt the proposal violated Section 14-72, Subsection F, which is the section on whether changes to a non-landmarked building would impact its eligibility. Staff clarified that the Demo/Alt Review process is a delay process, not a prohibition process. Based on the code, if the owner has met the specified criteria, but if there were a lot of community concern, the only options are to postpone for more information and ultimately approve it, or apply for non-consensual designation. Chair Sladek pointed out that he knew the motion would pass, but his vote was a protest vote. If the Commission had been leaning toward a denial of the request, they would have had to defend their position with a code-based rationale in the motion. Members expressed frustration with feeling they have to rubber stamp a project they find distasteful. Staff pointed out that they are providing an opportunity for a public hearing. Members suggested making a Design Review a mandatory component of the Demo/Alt Review process.  ADJOURNMENT Chair Sladek adjourned the meeting at 8:08 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by Gretchen Schiager