Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 04/08/2015City of Fort Collins Page 1 April 8, 2015 Ron Sladek, Chair Doug Ernest, Vice Chair City Council Chambers Maren Bzdek City Hall West Meg Dunn 300 Laporte Avenue Kristin Gensmer Fort Collins, Colorado Per Hogestad Dave Lingle Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14 Alexandra Wallace on the Comcast cable system 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 April 8, 2015 Minutes  CALL TO ORDER Chair Sladek called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m.  ROLL CALL PRESENT: Dunn, Zink, Bzdek, Hogestad, Gensmer, Lingle, Ernest, Sladek ABSENT: Wallace (excused) STAFF: McWilliams, Weinberg, Schiager  PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None.  DISCUSSION AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 11, 2015 REGULAR MEETING. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the March 11, 2015 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. Landmark Preservation Commission Approved by Commission at their June 10, 2015 meeting. City of Fort Collins Page 2 April 8, 2015 Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the minutes from the March 11, 2015 meeting. Ms. Gensmer seconded. Motion passed 8-0. [Timestamp: 5:34 p.m.] 2. 320 WALNUT STREET, PROPOSED SHADE STRUCTURE PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Final Design Review of Proposed Rooftop Shade Structure APPLICANT: Pete Turner, Illegal Pete’s INC; Tim Politis, One Line Studio LLC Staff Report Mr. Weinberg presented the staff report. Applicant Presentation Mr. Turner gave a brief presentation. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion A Member asked for clarification as to whether this is just a Final Design Review, with no Conceptual Review. Mr. Weinberg said it is up to the Commission if they are ready for a Final Design Review. He mentioned that the Commission had previously conducted a Conceptual Review that included a preliminary design of a shade structure using triangular sails. The Applicant said that while this design is a different construction method, it is roughly the same size as the first design. Chair Sladek said that after the questions and discussion, he would ask if everyone was ready for a final review. The Commission asked about the construction and material of the shade, and how the vertical supports would be attached. The Applicant explained that the rope was ¾” solid-braid, multi-filament polypropylene. The frame is an antique bronze, with two vertical supports on each side, tucked behind the brick pilasters, and through-bolted into the inside of the building. A Member asked how the ropes would be tensioned. The Applicant wasn’t certain, but was confident that his architect had accounted for that. There was a suggestion from a Member that adding an additional east-west cross-member to the structure would not only reflect the industrial garage door feel of the rest of the building, but would also reduce the tension on the ropes. Other Members felt that would make the design look heavier or fussier. The Commission discussed whether there were other solutions that wouldn’t be bolted into the historic fabric, but the Applicant felt the bolts would have less impact than dropping columns, adding that his architect had discouraged penetrating the roof. Members suggested a canopy, sails or umbrellas, but the Applicant pointed out that the span of the roof would prohibit a canopy or sails, and he preferred the proposed design to umbrellas aesthetically. There was disagreement among the Members as to whether the design was too heavy and whether it was reversible. Several commented that they liked the simplicity and uniqueness of the design, and understood the functionality and necessity of it. The Commission talked about the importance of tying any objections to the Secretary of Interior Standards and Old Town Design Guidelines. Chair Sladek asked the Commission to look through the packet at how the Applicant addressed each point to determine whether they object to anything specific. The Commission discussed the setback and street level visibility, and whether the view from some of the upcoming large-scale new developments should be considered. There were mixed opinions about the proposal’s compliance with Standard 9, particularly with regard to size, scale, proportion and massing. There was agreement that the new work was clearly differentiated from the old. The Commission discussed whether the design meets the requirements of the Old Town Design Guidelines, section 3.31, regarding additions and accessory structures. Members expressed differing viewpoints about the design’s compatibility and continuity with the existing structure. City of Fort Collins Page 3 April 8, 2015 The question of whether this was a Conceptual or Final Review arose again. The Applicant would like this to be a Final Review, explaining that this proposal was the result of extensive discussion and design effort. Staff explained the options available to the Commission, noting that it is up to the Commission to decide whether they have enough information for a Final Review. Commission Deliberation A roll call was conducted to determine whether the Commission was ready for a Final Review. The result was 6-2 in favor of proceeding with a Final Review. Ms. Zink moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the final design of the shade structure for 320 Walnut Street, finding that the design as presented complies with Section 14-48, Approval of Proposed Work, the Secretary of Interior Standards, in particular Standard 9, and in general terms with the Old Town Design Standards. Ms. Gensmer seconded. Mr. Lingle said he would be voting no, finding that the proposed design does not meet Standard 9 of the Secretary of Interior Standards, nor does it meet sub-paragraphs 2 or 5 of Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code. Motion passed 6-2, with Mr. Lingle and Mr. Hogestad dissenting. The Applicant volunteered that he would approach his design team to explore the possibility of adding a cross-member to the structure and making the design less bulky, and will report back to Staff with the result of that discussion. [Timestamp: 6:45 p.m.] 3. 508 REMINGTON STREET - CONCEPTUAL AND FINAL DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The 508 Remington Street property was designated as a Fort Collins Landmark on November 18, 2014, under Standard C, Design/Construction. The Applicant has identified changes to earlier plans, which he would like to present to the Commission. As the property is designated, the Commission has Final Design Review authority on any exterior alterations to the building and site. APPLICANT: James MacDowell Staff Report Ms. McWilliams presented the staff report. Applicant Presentation Mr. MacDowell spoke briefly to the Commission, explaining how the three proposals were interrelated. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion Staff clarified for the Commission that the first bullet point on Page 31 of the packet should refer to the south side of the building rather than the east side. A Member asked whether the frame addition was part of the designation, and Staff confirmed that the entire property was designated. Because the addition would be considered historic, a Member inquired as to how the west door would be closed off. The Applicant described several options. Option A would be to leave the frame and exterior light, and do a monolithic infill over the door. Option B would be to leave the door and insulate from behind with weather seal coating. Option C would include removing the stoop and handrail. He further explained that the reason he wants to seal off that door is to add wall space for a broom closet. A Member suggested retaining the door for interpretation, seal it closed, insulate and drywall over it from the inside, leave the stoop, possibly remove the handrail, and landscape around it. City of Fort Collins Page 4 April 8, 2015 Chair Sladek confirmed with the Commission that they had no substantial concerns with regard to the exterior changes. Discussion then turned to the changes to the fireplace. The Applicant explained that the firebox would be replaced with a gas insert, and that the ornate surround would be maintained. Chair Sladek asked what potential impact the firebox conversion might have on a tax credit. Staff explained that the tax credit review would come to the Commission in the future, but that the Applicant would like feedback if the Commission saw anything that would raise concerns now, before the work is done. The Commission did not express any concerns. A Member inquired about the plans for replacing a window with a sliding door. The Applicant discussed the dimensions and materials, and pointed out the location of the door on a photo. The Commission was in agreement that they were ready for Final Review. Commission Deliberation Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve as Final Design Review the project at 508 Remington Street, finding that the project meets the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation and Section 14-48, Approval of Proposed Work, of the Municipal Code. Ms. Bzdek seconded. Mr. Lingle suggested adding an amendment that the West door and stoop be retained for interpretation. Mr. Ernest agreed, and the motion was so amended and seconded. Motion passed 8-0. The Applicant asked to show the Commission some additional future changes to see if the Commission had any concerns in terms of the tax credit. The Commission agreed to hear the information. He discussed the following two items: 1. Changes had been made to the layout of the upstairs kitchen from the original proposal. No concerns were expressed by the Commission. 2. Modifications were made to the entry stair at the northeast corner of the building. Members questioned whether the deck reconstruction was a qualifying project for a state tax credit, particularly with the modern design. The Applicant explained that he had tried to replicate what he believed had been there previously. Staff suggested contacting the State to find out if that particular part of the project qualifies, and if not, the Applicant might want to leave it off the application. As a side note, the Applicant shared that he had unearthed about 50 linear feet of original flagstone which he would be reusing to create a pathway around the house. [Timestamp: 7:16 p.m.]  OTHER BUSINESS None  ADJOURNMENT Chair Sladek adjourned the meeting at 7:16 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by Gretchen Schiager.