Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 01/13/2016City of Fort Collins Page 1 January 13, 2016 Ron Sladek, Chair Doug Ernest, Vice Chair City Council Chambers Meg Dunn City Hall West Kristin Gensmer 300 Laporte Avenue Per Hogestad Fort Collins, Colorado Dave Lingle Alexandra Wallace Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14 Belinda Zink on the Comcast cable system 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 January 13, 2016 Minutes • CALL TO ORDER Chair Sladek called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. • ROLL CALL PRESENT: Dunn, Zink, Hogestad, Wallace, Gensmer, Lingle, Ernest, Sladek ABSENT: None STAFF: McWilliams, Bzdek, Dorn, Yatabe, Schiager, Kadrich • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None • CONSENT AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 9, 2015 REGULAR MEETING. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the December 9, 2015 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. Landmark Preservation Commission Approved by Commission at their January 27, 2016 meeting. City of Fort Collins Page 2 January 13, 2016 2. ADDITION OF MARK WERNIMONT TO DESIGN ASSISTANCE PROGRAM CONSULTANT LIST PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this item is for the Commission to consider the addition of Mark Wernimont, Colorado Sash and Door, to the Design Assistance Program Consultant List. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the addition of Mr. Wernimont, Colorado Sash and Door, to the Design Assistance Program Consultant List as a fenestration specialist, finding that his qualifications meet or exceed the program requirements. 3. 802 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a Final Demolition/Alteration Review of a proposed alteration of the Markley Property located at 802 Peterson Street, a one and one-half story single family dwelling constructed in c. 1939. The property owners propose to construct a one-story open porch addition. APPLICANT: Ronald A. Olson and Aundrelyn Knott 802 Peterson St Fort Collins, Co 80524 Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission accept the Consent Agenda for the regular meeting of January 13 as presented. Ms. Gensmer seconded. Motion passed 8-0. • PULLED FROM CONSENT None • DISCUSSION AGENDA [Timestamp: 5:37 p.m.] Chair Sladek & Mr. Lingle recused themselves from this item due to conflicts, and left the room. Vice Chair Ernest chaired this item. 4. COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON ALTERATION /DEMOLITION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a proposal to demolish or significantly alter two silos located on the Woodward Technology Center, addressed variously as 1103 East Lincoln Avenue and 1041 Woodward Way. The silos are a part of the Coy-Hoffman Farm, designated on the Colorado State Register of Historic Properties. APPLICANT: Wayne Timura Next Level Development, Inc. 735 Lancers Court West, Suite 100 Monument, CO 80132 Vice Chair Ernest made some opening remarks explaining the order of proceedings. Staff Report Ms. McWilliams presented the staff report. Applicant Presentation Wayne Timura from Next Level Development, the Applicant for the project, introduced his team. City of Fort Collins Page 3 January 13, 2016 Steve Stiesmeyer, Woodward’s Director of Corporate Real Estate, began with some background. He talked about the challenges of the site. He said a historical site assessment (HSA) conducted in March of 2014 stated the silos were in poor and dangerous condition and recommended further structural assessment. Both Woodward and the City engaged structural firms to conduct an analysis of the concerns raised in the HSA. He said the firms concluded that the silos showed signs of imminent failure and that there is a risk the silos could collapse. He stated that the City red-tagged the silos as unsafe. He noted that Woodward can’t get insurance on the barn or the milk house due to the condition of the silos. For these reasons, Woodward has developed a creative plan, which he said would retain the historical significance of the farmstead. Woodward envisions that this historic area will come alive with activity with this alternative adaptive functional reuse plan to renovate the barn and milk house, and repurpose the silos. Angie Milewski, a Landscape Architect with BHA Design, said she had been working with Woodward on the Master Plan. She gave an overview of the Master Plan and Site Plan drawings in the packet including the site’s relationship to the Poudre Trail and river restoration area. She said the farm structures were always an important part of Woodward’s plan for the site, although they didn’t know exactly how they would be used. Alm2s (Dave Lingle and Brad Massey) hired BHA because of their interest in preservation. She said they based their design on the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation, the Master Plan for the Woodward campus, trails and natural area, and Woodward’s potential uses for the buildings. She briefly discussed the already approved plans for the barn to become conference space for Woodward and the community, noting that Mr. Massey would address that design in more detail later. She explained that the setting of the historic site was significantly altered when the golf course was constructed. She pointed out various features shown on the plan, including sidewalk connections with ADA access, a small outdoor patio on the west side of barn, and a public loop trail with an interpretive area for the farm. She talked about relocating the milk house closer to its original location, and possibly using it for a bike share program or for employee bike repair, to compliment the bike storage planned for the “lean to” addition on the side of the barn. They investigated a number of options for the silos, but any change from agricultural to another use would require bringing the silos up to current structural code and ADA accessibility requirements. These requirements could mean adding elevators or bridge connections, which they felt would be visually obtrusive. They investigated stabilizing the silos in place, but they would need to be barricaded for no public use due to their condition. She said that Woodward had tasked BHA with finding a use for the silos that would support their plan for the site, and went on to explain their proposal to retain the upper portion of the silos in place to create outdoor seating areas. Brad Massey, with Alm2s Architects, took over the presentation. He emphasized that the barn will remain in its original location, and explained how it will be restored and repaired. He said the “lean to” would be closed in with a one-foot setback and used for restrooms and storage. He talked about the need to replace the sliding doors in the barn to out-swinging doors for egress purposes. They also propose to add skylights on the north side to bring in natural light. The barn roof, which is in disrepair, will be reconstructed with composite shingles and insulated panels for thermal performance. About 60% of the hay loft floor would be removed, with 40% remaining around the perimeter for interpretation. They would remove most of the interior walls, leaving short sections for interpretation. Cross-member beams would be added for lateral stability. He quickly reviewed the additional drawings in the packet. Mr. Timura concluded the presentation by stating that Woodward plans a significant investment to retain the historic structures as an integral part their corporate headquarters through the adaptive functional reuse, which provides a public interpretive benefit. He requested approval for the dismantling and reconstruction of a portion of the silos as proposed. Public Input Nancy York said she is sentimentally attached to the silos. While she appreciates Woodward’s restoration of the barn, and understands that they would like to utilize as much of the site as possible, she would like the silos to stay. City of Fort Collins Page 4 January 13, 2016 Kevin Murray said tearing down the silos instead of rehabilitating them does not follow the Secretary of Interior Standards. He also said the engineers may have said the silos were dangerous, but they all agreed they could be rehabilitated. He did not want to demonize Woodward, but wants them to reframe their plan and preserve the legacy of the property. He asked the Commission to support keeping the silos and to seek local landmark status for them. Bill Whitley urged the LPC to preserve these state landmark structures and support their designation as a local landmark. Mary Humstone said as an expert in historic farm buildings she is in favor of retaining the silos, which are an important part of the rural farm context. She said it seems disingenuous of Woodward to purchase the property knowing it contained this historic farmstead, which includes the silos, and then later decide to make the silos into seating areas. She said silos were tall structures intended to store animal feed, and she found it offensive to turn them into “cutesy” seating areas. She also commented that she appreciated the preservation of the exterior of the barn, but did not support the interior being so drastically changed. Carol Tunner passed around some large paintings of the barn to the Commission as evidence of the historic context. [It was noted by Mr. Yatabe that Staff had taken photos of the paintings for the record.] Ms. Tunner said that the silos were eligible as local landmarks under standards A, B and C. She said the state would consider delisting the entire property if the silos are torn down. She said Woodward had assured the public at the groundbreaking ceremony that the silos would be saved. She alleged that Woodward had cherry-picked portions of the engineering reports to disparage the silos’ condition. She quoted other parts of those reports that used terms like “intervention”, “should be repaired”, and “significant repairs”. She said the silos are restorable, giving an example of a similar case, and said that there are grants available to assist with that. She asked the Commission to please save the silos, and submitted a stack of signatures she had collected in support of saving the silos. Harry Rose said he moved to Fort Collins because he wanted to live in a city where there is a sense of history and a sense of place. He said it is important to preserve our history. He said there is no engineering reason that the City can’t designate this landmark. He said Woodward knew going in that the land was historic and there is no reason the silos can’t be stabilized and preserved. He said our descendants would appreciate preserving our history. He urged the Commission to postpone consideration and initiate a local landmark designation. Elizabeth “Lisa” Ashbach, member of the Bellvue Historic Foundation, noted that the organization had already submitted a letter, which was in the packet. She read from City Code Section 14.2(B), which she said applied to this situation. She asked the LPC to delay final determination to consider a landmark designation process. Carole Hossan commented on the history and beauty of the silos, and said that she supports designating them as local landmarks and repairing them. She asked the Commission to vote to postpone consideration of the demolition permit. Wayne Sundberg said that he interviewed one of the Coy’s daughters in 1972, and learned about the importance of the farm and the family history. He said that Council had recognized the historic significance of the farm when they designated the “Loop Trail” as the Coy Homestead Loop Tour. He said there aren’t too many silos and barns left, and they need to be preserved as an important part of our heritage. Dave Dixon spoke on behalf of the Pioneer Association to express their vigorous opposition to the demolition of the silos. The Pioneer Association was founded in 1906 and has a strong interest in preservation. John G. Coy became their first Chairman in 1906. He talked about some of the Association’s preservation efforts. He said Woodward was aware of the state historic designation when they acquired the property and represented themselves as having a commitment to protecting the barn and silos. He asked that they cease their efforts to demolish the silos. Judy Jackson said as a member of both the Bellvue Historic Foundation and the Pioneer Association, preservation is very important to her. The silos and barn represent an important part of history. She said she hopes the silos will remain standing, stating that it would be a travesty to take them down. They are one of a kind, and there aren’t many left. She implored the Commission to save them. City of Fort Collins Page 5 January 13, 2016 Gina Janett asked the Commission to postpone their decision to initiate a local landmark designation process. She said that she was on City Council in the mid-1990’s at the time they initiated the demolition delay ordinance in response to the demolition of a historic home. She also pointed out that the preservation of the old downtown Post Office was accomplished through a nonconsensual designation, noting that most would agree that was a good thing. She also wondered why Woodward, as a 21st century technology leader, wouldn’t want to honor a 19th century technology leader on that farm. She said Woodward received financial incentives from the City and they need to respect and honor the importance of silos and preserve them. She also pointed out that there are grants available for this purpose. Neal Spencer, a member of the Bellvue Historic Foundation, agreed with the previous comments. He noted that Woodward knew what they were getting into, and said they were interested in saving the silos, and now they want to change their focus and use of the barn. He asked the LPC to postpone their decision and consider the historic nature of the site. He also asked whether the changes to the barn will impact the significance or historic designation of the barn. Fred Snyder mentioned there is now a bank standing on the northeast corner of Lincoln and Lemay where another silo and farmhouse were torn down 15 years ago. He urged the Commission to save the silos. Roger Hoover pointed out that the route of Highway 14 into town is major gateway, and asked what message we would be sending about our community and its development if we allow this significant historic image to be destroyed. He said he appreciates Woodward’s efforts to get some use out of these buildings, and understands the novelty of using it for a business space, but to gut and destroy the character of barn and the visual landscape of the silos just to gain some extra conference room space seems unnecessary. He said Woodward knew the site was historic, and urged the City to preserve the silos. Myrna Watrous said as Treasurer for the Fort Collins Historical Society she had a fiduciary interest in this site. She was involved in fundraising for this site in the 1990’s, and said donations were received from all over the community, including sizeable donations from the Hoffman family and Woodward themselves. She questioned whether those donations would have been made if the donors thought part of this site would be demolished. She said it is an iconic site and that Woodward might treasure a view like that. She said Woodward has reflected strong American values in the past, and that scene is as American as you can get. She asked the Commission to deny Woodward’s petition for the demolition of the silos. She also asked whether the proposed renovations of the barn and dismantling of the fireplace had been approved by the state historical fund. She said she wanted to hear from the City Attorney’s office as to why this matter wasn’t settled during the lengthy negotiations between Woodward and the City. Rebecca Douglas said she loved this property. She appreciated Woodward’s presentation and the ideas they mentioned, particularly the idea of a museum for agricultural artifacts and information about Woodward’s history. She said that would be an opportunity to preserve the facility and use it to teach and educate and open it up to the community. She would like to hear more about that idea and how it could work. She also asked Woodward what it would take to get the site insured. She also said she appreciated the work that had been done on the river front. Heather Wolhart, who’s great, great grandfather was John Coy, told of her strong childhood attachment to the site. She thanked those who supported preserving the silos. She talked about John Coy’s contributions to the community. She said he was an advocate of balance of progress and history. She said she supports the barn being repurposed and used, and emphasized that if something is not used, if will not be maintained. She said the silos have been changed in her lifetime. She said there is very little left of the original homestead, and that is progress. She said the family loves the idea of seeing the barn used in this way. She said she appreciates the love of history, but Woodward should be able to use their property for their own purposes and make it something beautiful. She showed the Commission a historic photo of the farm. [Mr. Yatabe suggested that Staff take a picture of the photo for the record, which was done.] Sally Ketchum said she had sent a letter to the Commission and asked Carol Tunner to read it on her behalf, due to her failing eyesight. The letter expressed opposition to the demolition of the silos. [The full letter was included in the packet.] City of Fort Collins Page 6 January 13, 2016 Applicant Response to Public Comment Ms. Milewski addressed some questions from the public. She said no changes have been made to the site without going through the required approval process with the State or otherwise. She said the barn renovations have been reviewed by the City and were found to be acceptable, and that it will still retain its eligibility. Staff Response to Public Comment Ms. McWilliams said she had no additional information to offer. Commission Questions and Discussion Vice Chair Ernest made some procedural comments. He said the Applicant had made all of the required submittals, noting what items were included in the packet. He explained that the Building Review Board decision regarding safety concerns with the silos is currently being appealed to Council. He emphasized that the barn was not under discussion at this time, and that the focus of this hearing is the demolition/alteration of the silos. He reviewed the options before the Commission as outlined in the staff report, and provided a brief overview of the hearing and appeal process. Mr. Yatabe clarified that any final decision of the LPC can be appealed, and also stated that the Commission has the latitude to impose conditions even if the Applicant does not agree to them. Ms. Dunn brought up a citizen’s question about whether the changes to the inside of the barn would affect the state designation, and asked to confirm that the state designation was based on the exterior and anything done to the interior would have no impact. Ms. McWilliams said she believed that to be correct, that at least at the local level they would only look at the exterior. Ms. Dunn also asked Woodward to respond to a citizen question about what could be done to make the silos insurable. Chris Fawzy, attorney for Woodward, said based on the current condition of the silos they are not insurable. They don’t believe they can change the structural integrity in a safe and effective manner, and cannot obtain insurance based on the condition of the existing structure. Mr. Hogestad thanked the members of the public who spoke. He said he appreciated the creative adaptive reuse of the barn, and the planning for the site work. However, he said the design team is too focused on finding a use for the silos, rather than just letting them be an icon. He was surprised and disappointed that more alternatives weren’t offered, including the structural stabilization of the silos. Ms. Zink asked whether the individual eligibility of the silos was based on each one separately, or together. Ms. McWilliams referred to the evaluation form, stating that they were evaluated as a pair of silos. Ms. Zink noted the different construction types of the two silos. She said she would have liked to see the full structural reports and more photos of each silo individually to better understand the structural issues. She agreed with Mr. Hogestad that there isn’t a real need to reuse the silos, stating their real purpose is as to be part of the ensemble to retain the integrity of the farmstead. She believes there are many ways to stabilize and preserve them without too much maintenance. Ms. Wallace read Land Use Code, Section 3.4.7(e), and said she was not convinced that all possible efforts have been made to comply with the requirement to minimize potential harm or adverse effects. Ms. Gensmer agreed with Ms. Wallace and added that based on City Code 14-72(f)(1)d, she was not satisfied with the plan of protection provided by the Applicant. It did not provide specifics, and basically said that the answers will be provided after the fact. She also pointed out the potential for archeological finds, and the need to have a plan for dealing with those. Ms. Dunn asked whether there was a plan of protection in place before any of the work began. Ms. McWilliams said that according to the Applicant, their plans were approved in April 2013, and the plan of protection was not in the Code at that point. Mr. Yatabe clarified that Land Use Code Section 3.4.7 applies to incoming new developments. In this case, the development project has already been approved, so the Commission should focus on Chapter 14 of the City Code, which deals with the demolition or alteration of non-designated historic structures. Mr. Ernest responded to a citizen comment about another barn being demolished. He said that the Fisher barn and garage were found to be non-historic when they were reviewed for Woodward in January of 2013, so those demolitions weren’t an issue at that time. City of Fort Collins Page 7 January 13, 2016 Ms. Dunn asked if there was for a change of use for the silos, whether the ADA access requirements would apply to a landmarked structure. Ms. McWilliams explained that there are alternative codes for properties designated locally, or on the state or national registries, which provide more forgiveness on those requirements. Ms. Dunn asked the Applicant about the plans for historic interpretive signage at the site. Mr. Timura said the signage along the river would be done by the City’s Natural Areas Department. For Woodward’s part, an interpretive area is being planned on the path closer to the barn, and they are open to suggestions as to what would be there such as signs, video, etc. Mr. Ernest addressed another comment from a citizen regarding the nonconsensual designation of the old post office. He said that was probably the only example of a nonconsensual designation in Fort Collins. He noted that the post office was listed on the national register in 1978, and then was designated locally in 1985. Mr. Ernest said that based on A, B and C of the significance criteria used for local landmark designation, the silos seem to be clearly eligible for landmark status. He said the Coy-Hoffman Farmstead is one of the earliest farms in this area and represents the agricultural roots of Fort Collins. He talked about the differences between the communities along the I-25 corridor, each with different histories and properties that represent that history, and the Coy-Hoffman Farmstead does that in Fort Collins. He noted an error in the original nomination, where it references John G. Coy’s involvement with a project on the CSU property in 1885, and said it should be 1875. He mentioned that John Coy ran for Governor in 1890 on a third-party ticket, which was quite unusual at the time. He also noted that the construction of the silos is also unique and important. Only one of the four significance criteria must be met for a landmark designation and in this case A, B and C are all met. Mr. Ernest further commented that all seven of the Aspects of Integrity would be affected by the demolition of the silos. He said that he would have to vote for a postponement, seeing no conditions that would work for granting the application. Mr. Hogestad would like to know the basis of the postponement and what action would happen as a result of a postponement. Ms. Dunn said that postponement would allow for additional information to be provided to the Commission, such as: the structural assessments, information on what it would take to make the silos insurable, information about signage with some collaboration between Woodward and Natural Areas, and staff’s assessment of the benefits of landmark designation. Ms. Zink said the Commission does not have enough information to vote in favor of demolition, even with conditions. If they go forward with postponement, she would like to see more of Woodward’s rationale for demolition of the silos, and more indication that other alternatives for keeping the silos were explored. She said they still haven’t heard anything about what it would take to save the silos. Mr. Hogestad asked whether the demolition could be approved with conditions. Ms. Zink and Ms. Wallace said they didn’t have enough information to make a decision, or even to know what any conditions would be. Ms. Wallace would also like more information about how the silos could be stabilized and how that would be supervised. Mr. Ernest said it sounded like the Commission was leaning toward a postponement, and read from page 98 of the packet where that option was explained in detail. He asked about the kind of information the Commission could request. Mr. Yatabe suggested that if the Commission is considering postponement, they may want to assemble a list of specific items they would like to receive from Staff and/or the Applicant, but that additional information could also be requested during the postponement period. Mr. Yatabe also suggested that the Commission first vote on whether they want to postpone, and then compile a list of what information they would like. Commission Deliberation Ms. Zink moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission request a postponement of consideration of the application for the demolition of the silos at the Coy-Hoffman Farm for a period not to exceed 45 days with the purpose of seeking additional information in compliance with the Preservation Code Section 14-72. City of Fort Collins Page 8 January 13, 2016 Mr. Yatabe said that it might be better to postpone to a meeting in about a month, if that is sufficient time for Staff to prepare the information. Ms. McWilliams said she believed Staff could gather the information in two weeks, if needed. The Commission discussed whether to postpone to the next regular meeting in two weeks, or until the February 10th regular meeting, and agreed that a month seemed more reasonable. Mr. Hogestad indicated he was uncomfortable voting on the postponement without first specifying what information is being requested. Mr. Yatabe said it might be better to see if the Commission agrees on a postponement at all, before compiling a list of requests, but they could do it the other way around if preferred. Ms. Zink revised her motion to include a specific date for the postponement period, as well as a reference to the list of items to be requested. Ms. Zink moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission request postponement of the consideration of demolition of the Coy-Hoffman silos until the February 10th meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission with the purpose of seeking additional information needed for consideration in compliance with City Code Section 14-72 with the understanding that the list of items to be requested will be developed by the Commission tonight. Ms. Dunn seconded. Mr. Hogestad again stated that he was uncomfortable about voting without knowing what the requests will be. The Members proceeded to develop the list as specified below. Ms. Zink again revised her motion, this time including the list of items requested by the Commission. Ms. Zink moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission postpone consideration of the application for demolition of the Coy-Hoffman silos until the February 10th meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission with the purpose of consideration of additional information in compliance with City Code Section 14-72. The requested items are as follows: 1. Copies of the three engineering reports regarding the silos. 2. Opinion from Staff regarding benefits of landmark designation. 3. Information regarding interpretive signage planned by the City Natural Areas Department and by Woodward. 4. More specific Plan of Protection, in particular regarding archeological resources and for the existing structures. 5. More thorough photographic documentation of the silos, both together and separately. Ms. Dunn seconded. Motion passed 6-0. Vice Chair Ernest called for a short break at approximately 8:12 p.m. The meeting reconvened at approximately 8:22 p.m. Chair Sladek and Mr. Lingle rejoined the Commission. Ms. Dunn recused herself due to living in the notification area for the project. 5. 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a Final Demolition/Alteration Review of a proposed demolition of the Huberty House located at 815 W. Oak Street, a one-story single family dwelling constructed in c. 1906. Upon approval of the demolition, the property owners propose the new construction of a two-story single family dwelling. APPLICANT: Kelly R. Close 815 W. Oak St Fort Collins, CO 80521 Staff Report Ms. Dorn presented the staff report. City of Fort Collins Page 9 January 13, 2016 Applicant Presentation Andrew Milbauer and Kelly Close introduced themselves. Mr. Close said the process had been challenging and somewhat overwhelming, but that Ms. Dorn and Ms. McWilliams had been very helpful. He gave a presentation providing an overview of the project and the process. He explained that he hadn’t filed an appeal when he was initially notified that the property had been determined to be eligible for landmark designation, because the 14 day appeal period had passed while he was dealing with a family emergency and some health issues. He said that Jason Marmor had completed an architectural inventory of the property, and said it didn’t meet any of the landmark criteria, which conflicted with the official determination of eligibility. He talked about the options they considered and how they arrived at the current plan. He said they wanted to make maximum use of the space while minimizing height and massing. He said there were numerous structural issues that needed to be addressed. He discussed the three alternatives they explored, and the reasons they decided on the current proposal, which were related to safety issues, cost concerns, and the environmental impacts of increased impermeable surface of the yard. [NOTE: The Applicant’s presentation was not included in the packet, but has been submitted into the record.] Mr. Milbauer expressed frustration with the lengthy, confusing and costly process. He said that they had submitted everything requested by the City in a timely fashion. He said the inventory prepared by Jason Marmor, which was required at their expense, clearly stated the house was not eligible for landmark status. He talked about their commitment to the environment and their plans to recycle materials. He said they held an open house for the neighbors, which was a very rewarding experience, and he would encourage others to do that as part of the process. Public Input Mary Humstone said this house is in the Loomis Addition for which the City has devoted a lot of interest, effort and money to prepare a historic context and has put out an RFP for a survey. While she appreciates the process the owners went through, and has heard a lot of really good things, she is distressed that they couldn’t find a way to save the property. She said between 2004 and 2014 there had been 21 demolition and 65 alteration permits pulled within the 15-block Loomis Addition. She said there had been at least 10 houses built in that neighborhood since 2000. She said it’s a beautiful neighborhood that is losing its history. She said we need to be more proactive and help people save these buildings. Gina Janett applauded the Applicant’s process and effort to get neighborhood input and look at alternatives. She asked why they didn’t go through the Design Assistance program, and wondered if they are aware of the benefits and tax credits available. She talked about grants for the historical context of the Loomis Addition, and the upcoming survey. She appreciates that they did a good job of using the Design Guidelines to come up with a historic style, but it still seems a little too big in terms of height and massing based on the context. She would like the LPC to postpone approval, and do more proactive work on designating houses. Myrna Watrous said she is concerned about the rapid destruction of the Loomis Addition. She said she can sympathize with the Applicants, having experienced a situation in the 1980’s where bringing a historic property up to code was cost prohibitive. She asked the LPC to deny the demolition request and please stop knocking down houses. Roger Hoover said he sympathizes with the Applicants and appreciates their efforts, but questions whether it’s okay to come in and buy a home and tear it down. Bringing an older house up to Code is expensive, and that should be expected at the time of purchase. He asked if we want to preserve these old neighborhoods or let them disappear. He asked the Commission to send a message to homebuyers that if they buy a historic house, they should know they can’t do anything they want with it, and should expect to put the money in to preserve it. Bill Whitley commended the Applicants for considering the neighbors and the design guidelines and trying to make it fit in. However, he is opposed to scraping houses. He wondered whether the owners were aware that state historic tax credits could possibly help with the costs of raising the house and digging out the basement. He would like to see it saved. City of Fort Collins Page 10 January 13, 2016 Fred Snyder said he lives in a similar home. He finds it shocking that someone would tear down such a cool house on a street that looks like a Hollywood set. He said the character of the neighborhood gives the surrounding houses value, and the character is starting to blur without a home owner’s association to protect it. He doesn’t want to see the house demolished. Curt Lyons said the owners were very conscientious, and scraping the house was not their original plan. He said they worked hard to consider their neighbors, keep the massing down, avoid blocking out solar gain and try to fit with the neighborhood. He said if they were to lift the house, dig a basement and put in a new foundation, the cost would be prohibitive, and there were also worker safety concerns. He also mentioned concerns about lead paint, asbestos and energy efficiency. He said others in the area made no attempt to fit in with the vernacular of the neighborhood. He said we like to preserve and romanticize history, but in 1907 when the house was built, non-Caucasians could not inhabit the house and women couldn’t vote. Social standards have come a long way. He supports the project. Rebecca Douglas spoke in support of the project. She said making the space livable is the real concern. She supports historic presentation, but in this situation they’ve put a lot of thought into how to rebuild and make it fit with the neighborhood. Even if there are programs to help with the costs, it’s not worth it if it doesn’t fit with your life. She asked the Commission to consider this application carefully and give them a chance. Susan Hoskinson suggested the Applicants look at 120 N. Grant, where the previous owner had added a basement. She described how that work was done, and said it could be used as an example. She also pointed out that on the elevation of the new construction, there are trees showing the mass of the side roof of the east/west gable, and she doesn’t think those trees will ever be large enough to cover up the proposed roofline. She described the gables on her home at 121 N. Grant as an example of what she thinks is a better approach they should consider. Applicant Response Mr. Milbauer said they fully read the report on the Loomis Addition, as well as the City’s Design Guidelines for Old Town Neighborhoods. He emphasized that $40K is not feasible. He said they were aware of the Design Assistance and grants, but there were too many restrictions on them. He said as an environmental science teacher, his biggest priority is minimizing massing, minimizing loss of permeable surfaces and adding to heat island effect, as well as destroying urban habitat. They are also concerned about urban sprawl. He said hand digging a basement is not a feasible option. He asked what is it we’re trying to save. Mr. Close addressed the comment about the trees on the elevation drawing, and said that is about the size of the existing trees. He also clarified that he did not buy this house to tear it down. He is the longest standing owner-occupant of that house. He cares about the neighborhood, and they did not reach the decision to do a demolition and rebuild lightly. Staff Response None Commission Questions and Discussion Chair Sladek addressed the attrition of old houses in the Loomis Addition and elsewhere. He said people want to live in Old Town, but don’t want to live in an old house. He pointed out that the LPC only has so much authority, because they are bound to follow the preservation code. He said it’s the same code that was used for the previous discussion of the Woodward silos, which is Section 14, Article 4, and said that this house is not in an established district and is not yet designated. He explained the process from the initial administrative review through the additional steps that have taken place. He said the Applicants have provided what is requested by the Code. He suggested that if citizens are concerned about saving neighborhoods, they should ask City Council to strengthen the preservation code, but the LPC is limited by the current Code. Mr. Lingle added that denying the application is not one of the Commission’s options. He also said if they chose to delay the process, they would need to specify upon what criteria that decision is based. He asked how the Commission is to interpret the findings of Jason Marmor’s report which state the property is not eligible, in light of a conflicting report. Ms. McWilliams explained that it is just additional information for the Commission to consider. City of Fort Collins Page 11 January 13, 2016 Chair Sladek explained that the initial determination is based on limited information, which is largely about the architecture. They do not have an in-depth report at that point. The process of having the property reviewed by an independent consultant gets to the heart of the matter. He said Jason Marmor does good quality work, and he is inclined to rely upon his decisions. Mr. Marmor had the benefit of much more information than was available for the initial administrative review. Mr. Lingle acknowledged the frustration of the process at the expense of the owners. He added that they hear about frustrations with the historic preservation process from a lot of people, and will be looking for ways to improve it in the next few months. Mr. Hogestad asked whether the Applicants would consider having a concept drawing done at no cost through the Design Assistance program. Mr. Milbauer said that ten months into the process, most of the design suggestions they’ve heard involve an addition to the back of the house, which they are vehemently opposed to, so they would not be interested. Mr. Ernest said that in Section 14.71 of the Code, a property must meet at least one of the criteria of significance in order to be eligible. He doesn’t see that the property qualifies under criteria A or B, and agrees with Mr. Marmor’s findings that as a Classic Cottage it is not unique enough to qualify under C. Therefore, he would approve the demolition. Chair Sladek said that if an owner had initiated a request for landmark designation, the Commission likely would have approved it under criteria C as a great example of a Classic Cottage. This situation is different, since the owner is requesting a demolition. At this point, it’s not a matter of whether it’s eligible or not, they just need to move forward with applying the Code. Mr. Ernest agreed, adding that when there are conflicting expert opinions, it’s difficult to move forward with a landmark. Ms. Gensmer noted that this was a good example of a thorough plan of protection. Chair Sladek agreed. He commended the Applicant on their efforts and the quality of what they’ve submitted, but said it was just unfortunate that nothing could convince them to save the house. Commission Deliberation Mr. Lingle moved for approval of the Final Demolition/Alteration Review for 815 W. Oak Street based upon the staff findings on Page 278 of the packet. There was a suggestion to add a condition about recycling the historic materials, which did not result in a change to the motion. Mr. Lingle said he had different perspective on preservation than most of the other Commission Members. He doesn’t believe preservation means frozen in time for a particular period of time. He gave an example of a similar situation from about ten years ago that turned out positively. He said this project is sensitively designed in terms of massing, bulk and height, and follows the guidelines for redevelopment. Ms. Zink seconded. Motion passed 7-0. Ms. Dunn rejoined the Commission. [Timestamp: 9:31 p.m.] 6. RECOMMENDATION ON AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 14 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this item is to present to Council proposed changes to the landmark designation procedure set forth in Article II, Chapter 14, of City Code to make the landmark designation process more efficient in cases where a property owner does not consent to landmark designation (“non-consensual” designation) and the property is already designated on the National and/or State Historic Registers, either individually or as a part of a historic district. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. City of Fort Collins Page 12 January 13, 2016 Staff Report Laurie Kadrich, Director of Planning, Development and Transportation, began with the background for this proposal. She explained that in reviewing the timeline for a nonconsensual designation, she identified some areas where the process could be improved and the Code could be clarified. One of the proposed changes would give the Commission the option to forego a second hearing on a nonconsensual designation, if they chose to do so. Ms. McWilliams explained the proposed Code changes, as detailed in the staff report. Chair Sladek asked for clarification on what action is being requested of the Commission at this time. Ms. Kadrich explained that Staff is seeking the Commission’s recommendation as to whether it supports the proposed changes, before the matter goes to Council for a first reading on January 19th. Mr. Yatabe, Assistant City Attorney, clarified a procedural question, explaining that the Commission would need to put forth a motion, along with any comments the Commission would like to have on the record. Public Input Lisa Ashbach asked who was bringing forth this ordinance and why. She said this would reduce the time for public input on preservation activities. She said the current Code slows the process down to allow for input and exploration of other ideas. She added that this proposal seems to be “tailor made” for Woodward. She said she had corresponded with Darin Atteberry about this and was told that this may benefit others in the future. She said that the City’s reservation Codes help to make Fort Collins wonderful and urged the Commission not to support this ordinance. Mary Humstone urged the LPC not to recommend this change. She said she understood that this two-hearing delay process was originally adopted by Council specifically to allow time for review and for public input. She asked why the process needs to be changed when it is so rarely used. She said this change only seems to benefit a property owner who wants to demolish a building, but not the public. Having two hearings allows more people to get involved, and a nonconsensual designation should not be rushed. Gina Janett said the intent of the current ordinance is to have a “time-out” before a demolition can happen, to allow further research and exploration of alternatives. The process doesn’t seem to be broken and it shouldn’t be changed or sped up. A second hearing allows for more public participation. Other than clarification of whether a process is concurrent or not, this should not be approved. Harry Rose said he thought it was strange that this item is coming up now given some of the “shenanigans” going on with Woodward’s property. He likes the fact that Fort Collins values its history. The current ordinance provides adequate time for the public to get involved. The current process should not be sped up. He questioned who is going to benefit from streamlining this process, saying it was not the citizens. Myrna Watrous asked the Commission to reject this proposition for the reasons already mentioned. She said she had heard that this would be retroactive to some previous date, and asked if that was the case. Neal Spencer said he agreed with what others had said and asked the Commission to reject this proposal. He said this proposal seems to be trying to take the citizens out of the equation. He said reducing the time to evaluate these decisions seems counter-productive. Citizens should be given the opportunity to voice their opinions. Bill Whitley agreed with everyone who had spoken, saying that this should not be approved. He said his own house was saved from being scraped by having the additional time to research the home’s historical significance. Carole Hossan said this change would make it harder for the public to participate, which is not what the government should aspire to do. She objected to streamlining the process to benefit the developers, rather than accommodate the citizens. City of Fort Collins Page 13 January 13, 2016 Staff Response Ms. Kadrich addressed the question of the reason for and timing of this proposed ordinance change. She explained that it is standard procedure to bring Code amendments forward when staff is working on projects and trying to apply the Code, and issues come to light through that process that would allow for improvement. She referred to the Button House demolition, explaining how that situation led to Code changes, including the plan of protection, being brought to Council quickly. Ms. Kadrich then addressed the concerns about this change reducing opportunity for public input. She explained the timeline of the Demo/Alt Review process and the nonconsensual designation process, including the notification requirements and several opportunities for public input. This Code amendment is only addressing the second public hearing regarding the nonconsensual designation, providing an option for the Commission to forward an item to Council after the first hearing, if the Commission feels it has all the information it needs at that point. Ms. Kadrich asked Mr. Yatabe to address the citizen question about the timing for implementation of the amendment. Mr. Yatabe said that it would be effective January 1, 2016. Chair Sladek asked whether it was a typical process for Code changes to be made retroactive. Mr. Yatabe said it would depend on the specifics, and in this case that was the direction received in terms of drafting the ordinance. Commission Questions and Discussion Chair Sladek asked to confirm that with this change, there would be 60-90 days from the point of the Demo/Alt Review before the LPC’s decision would be sent to Council. Ms. Kadrich reviewed the timeline of the process again, and said there would be a minimum of 60 days for public review between the Demo/Alt Review and the first nonconsensual hearing. Based on that, she questioned what would be the purpose of the second hearing in a case where the Commission had the information they needed at that point. Mr. Ernest discussed his review of the Fort Collins properties listed on the national and state register. Of the roughly 40 listings, he found only nine properties that would fall under this process. He wondered why we wouldn’t just approach those few property owners about the possibility of making them local landmarks. He said he was puzzled by singling out this handful of properties. Ms. Kadrich used the Woodward development as an example, where the documentation from the State Registry was already available and had already been reviewed in a public process, and again wondered what would be the purpose of the second hearing in a case like that. She emphasized that it would still be at the LPC’s discretion as to whether to have the second hearing. Mr. Lingle asked what problem we were trying to solve by speeding up the process and possibly skipping the second hearing, since that is skipping one more opportunity for public input. Ms. Kadrich described two problems with the existing Code: 1) Lack of clarity on whether the timeline for owner consent was concurrent to or in addition to the next process; 2) No time certain for Council to take action. Since she was looking at those two issues already, she took the opportunity to look for other areas of improvement, such as the option to skip the second hearing. Ms. Dunn asked if Council would have two hearings within 75 days, or just one. Ms. Kadrich and Mr. Yatabe both addressed this, explaining that with the changes, the Council would hold a first hearing within 75 days. Ms. Dunn asked whether the demolition process is blocked if the nonconsensual designation is initiated. Ms. Kadrich explained that the demolition permit would be put on hold during the nonconsensual designation process. Ms. Dunn asked why only properties listed on the state and national registries were included when other properties may also have a lot of information available. Ms. Kadrich explained that there would be a lot of historic data already compiled at the state or national level through a public process. Ms. Kadrich also clarified that just because a property is on the state or national registry doesn’t mean the Commission has to follow this process, it is just an option. Ms. McWilliams added that if a property was on the state or national register, it has already gone through a public process to clearly establish its landmark status. City of Fort Collins Page 14 January 13, 2016 Mr. Hogestad asked what would happen if they didn’t have six affirmative votes for a nonconsensual designation. Ms. Kadrich explained that the Commission would then have to approve or approve with conditions. Chair Sladek asked about the process for the January 19th Council meeting. Ms. Kadrich explained that it would be a public hearing with public input, and follow the usual process for adopting the ordinance. Chair Sladek suggested that if they are going to do another review of the preservation Code in the coming months, they could look at this along with a broader look at the preservation Code. There was discussion about recommending to Council that this decision be delayed for that reason. Mr. Lingle agreed that it would be better to delay. Mr. Hogestad asked if there was a reason for the urgency. Ms. Kadrich said they try to address issues in a timely manner as they are identified. Ms. Dunn asked for clarification about the 15 days for property owner consent, and the option to wave that. Ms. McWilliams explained that if the owner was certain they did not want to consent, they could wave the 15 days. If the owner waved the 15 days at some point within that period, that would start the 30 day notification period at that point. Ms. Dunn commented that there should be a time limit for Council action, and that 75 days seemed more than adequate. She said the only concern the Members seemed to be having was with the second hearing issue. Members said the current Code sounds like Council could avoid taking action indefinitely if they wanted to, without any specific time limit. Mr. Yatabe noted that there was no reason to believe Council would not take action in some reasonable time, but that adding the 75 days makes it more specific. Chair Sladek expressed concern about the retroactive effective date. Mr. Ernest asked what the normal timeline was for an effective date on an approved Code change. Ms. Kadrich and Mr. Yatabe both confirmed that there is a first and second reading, and then ten days for publication of the ordinance before goes into effect, unless there is another date specified. Mr. Lingle asked whether they had to consider all the proposed changes as one package, or if they could consider each one separately. Ms. Kadrich said each of these is a separate amendment and the Commission could pick and choose which to recommend. Chair Sladek again pointed out that skipping the second hearing was optional, which Ms. Kadrich confirmed. Chair Sladek again expressed his discomfort with the retroactive date. Mr. Lingle said he would they rather defer this to a larger discussion of the preservation Code. Chair Sladek said he would support deferring. Mr. Hogestad agreed. Ms. Gensmer asked whether they could approve this now, and then revisit this as part of their broader discussion of the Code. Chair Sladek and Mr. Lingle expressed concern that if they recommend a deferral, Council might just approve it next week and they would have missed the opportunity to provide to provide an opinion. Ms. Gensmer said that was the reason for her suggestion. Ms. Kadrich said they could provide Council with more than one recommendation option in order of preference. Mr. Ernest said he would like to recommend to Council that they defer this to a broader discussion of the preservation Code. Mr. Lingle and Mr. Hogestad agreed. Ms. Gensmer agreed with that as first option, but her second preference would be to approve this, but not retroactively. Ms. Dunn agreed with Ms. Gensmer. Ms. Wallace agrees with deferring, without a second option, saying she would prefer not to “piecemeal” the Code at this time. Ms. Zink and Chair Sladek both agreed with Ms. Gensmer to have the second option. Mr. Lingle said he did have a second preference, but it would be to approve only the changes to the property owner’s consent and council action timeline, but not others at this time. Commission Deliberation Mr. Lingle moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to Council, as their preferred option, to defer amending City Code Chapter 14 as proposed to some later date when it can be part of a larger discussion of modifications to the historic preservation ordinance. Mr. Hogestad seconded. The motion passed 8-0. Chair Sladek asked whether anyone wished to make a motion for a second preference, but no motion was made. [Timestamp: 10:44 p.m.] City of Fort Collins Page 15 January 13, 2016 • OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Lingle brought up the discussion of agenda item #5 with regard to the process of the initial eligibility review and later getting a different opinion based on a more in-depth review. He wondered whether adding more time to the first step of the process so that the Chair and the CDNS Director have adequate information upon which to base their decision would help. Chair Sladek responded that they had just received a large stack of files to review for eligibility, and had asked Staff for additional information on the properties they were unsure about, but they can’t do that with all of them due to limits on staff resources. Mr. Lingle asked about the time limit for the initial review. Ms. McWilliams said from the time the application is submitted, there was a time limit of 14 days for the City to respond, unless the Applicant is willing to extend that. Mr. Lingle said maybe that time limit could be changed during their broader review of the preservation code. Chair Sladek added that they have sometimes asked Applicants to provide better photos, drawings, and more information for an initial review. Ms. Bzdek clarified that the example Chair Sladek had given was actually a different situation where they were asked to provide non-binding determinations of eligibility for properties within an area of adjacency for a development project. These are a different case, since there is not an Applicant involved with a specific request. This was something Staff was doing as a service to the LPC, at the request of the Commission. Chair Sladek said there have been times when he has reversed his initial decision when more information has become available. Mr. Lingle said we should try to avoid the aggravation factor for Applicants. Mr. Ernest said the intent of the administrative review was to streamline the process so that minor alteration applications can be quickly approved. Chair Sladek said 80% of the Demo/Alt applications are minor and are approved administratively. He explained that if more than one aspect of integrity is affected, it is considered a major alteration, and if the property is determined to be eligible by the Director and Chair, the application is then deferred to the LPC. Chair Sladek said they would be reviewing this process and trying to improve it. • ADJOURNMENT Chair Sladek adjourned the meeting at 10:51 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by Gretchen Schiager.