Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 01/27/2016City of Fort Collins Page 1 January 27, 2016 Ron Sladek, Chair Doug Ernest, Vice Chair City Council Chambers Meg Dunn City Hall West Bud Frick 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 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 27, 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: Frick (excused) STAFF: McWilliams, Bzdek, Yatabe, Schiager, Leeson, Kadrich • AGENDA REVIEW Ms. McWilliams said that Item #6, the North College Pedestrian Path, had been pulled from the agenda and would be coming back to the Commission at a later date. • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Jim Kelly thanked the Commission for a Friends of Preservation Award, and for the assistance in keeping the property looking like it did in 1910. Chair Sladek added the Jim Kelly and his wife, Betsy Markey, were the recipients of the annual award for the wonderful work they did on the rehabilitation of their home. Landmark Preservation Commission Approved by Commission at their February 27, 2016 meeting. City of Fort Collins Page 2 January 27, 2016 • CONSENT AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 13, 2016 REGULAR MEETING. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the January 13, 2016 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. 2. 1514 PETERSON STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a proposal to alter the Dr. Frank A. Betts House located at 1514 Peterson Street. The proposal includes a second floor addition and new front porch addition. APPLICANT: Joseph B. Charles and Karen L. Zaks 1514 Peterson Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 Commission Deliberation Mr. Hogestad moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission accept the consent agenda for the regular meeting of January 27, 2016 as presented. Ms. Gensmer seconded. Motion passed 8-0. • DISCUSSION AGENDA [Timestamp: 5:40 p.m.] 3. CACHE LA POUDRE NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA—HERITAGE CULTURALIST VOLUNTEER PROGRAM The purpose of this item is to introduce the Landmark Preservation Commission and members of the public to the application and training process for a local volunteer opportunity, the Heritage Culturalist Volunteer Program. This resource sharing program is made up of volunteers who are certified in the historical sites and recreational opportunities within the Cache La Poudre National Heritage Area and the programs and events of the Poudre Heritage Alliance. Presentation Ms. Bzdek made a few opening remarks, and introduced Susan Scott to present information about the program. Ms. Scott explained that the Poudre Heritage Alliance is the managing entity of the Cache La Poudre River National Heritage Area which extends from the western border of Roosevelt National Forest to where the Poudre River meets the South Platte east of Greeley. A national heritage area is different than a national park, in that while they are administered by the National Park Service, they don’t own any land. They rely on their partners and government entities to accomplish their mission to tell the story of the history of the Poudre River. A national heritage area is defined by a nationally distinctive landscape that arises from patterns of human activity shaped by geography. Their heritage area is all about ditches, canals and diversion structures, western water law, and the cultures of people that formed around the agriculture that was made possible by the Poudre River. She is one of two staff members and they have a board of 12 that represents Larimer and Weld County entities. City of Fort Collins Page 3 January 27, 2016 They want to grow their organization through their new volunteer program, the Heritage Culturalist Program. There are three parts of becoming a Heritage Culturalist. The first part is learning, and they have training coming up in March where the volunteers will be trained on the history of the Cache La Poudre, both Larimer side and Weld side, as well as the recreational opportunities that exist along the river. The next part is sharing, so once those volunteers have learned about the heritage area, and the programs and projects of the Poudre Heritage Alliance, they'll take that information out into the community, either on the trail or through events, activities and programs, and help share their story. The last part is documenting. They are working with the National Park Service to identify potential sites for the NPS Heritage Documentation Program. They have already spoken with them and they have come out to see a couple of sites and were very interested in documenting them. They want the volunteers to help compile the initial summaries to submit to NPS so they can move forward with getting those places on the National Registry, and also to create content for their digital resources on the website. Ms. Scott mentioned that Chair Sladek would be presenting and helping to guide some of the field learning sessions at their upcoming training in March. The training will take place both in Larimer and Weld County over two and a half days, with some classroom time and some site visits. Retired Supreme Court Justice Gregory Hobbs, an expert in water law, will also be presenting. Commission Questions and Discussion Chair Sladek asked if they had a need for an archeologist for the educational training. Ms. Scott said they wouldn’t be going that far back, but would be focusing more on Native American and early settler history in relation to our agricultural roots. Ms. Gensmer mentioned that the area around the Cache La Poudre River is extremely rich archeologically, even at that pre-contact and contact period with historic settlers and Native American tribes. Ms. Scott said that as part of the certification for being in the program, members will be required to participate in an annual extended learning opportunity. She said they were talking to various groups about potential topics and activities, and would love to talk to someone about archeology. Chair Sladek said he thought the archeological aspect might be missing from their program, and that Ms. Gensmer is an expert in historic archeology who may be able to help with that element of the educational program. Ms. Scott said that they only have two and a half days for the classroom and field training, and want to allow time for self-guided learning, and to help identify the sites that would be most interesting and accessible for people go visit and learn about the heritage area. Mr. Ernest mentioned that he’d had an opportunity a couple of years ago to hear Judge Hobbs speak, and he is a dynamic, fun speaker and an expert on water law. Ms. Scott said they were very excited to have the authority on water law speak to the group. Chair Sladek asked how the Commission could help. She said they are just looking for volunteers and trying to get the word out. Ms. Dunn asked if any prior experience was needed for the program, and Ms. Scott said no, but there is an application so they will know something about the participants. She said there wasn’t an application deadline in place, but toward the end of February she’ll be trying to wrap up the application process. They are looking for 24 people to participate in the program. Chair Sladek said it was a wonderful organization, and the work they are doing behind the scenes is remarkable. Water resources and the associated built features and other features along the river are not often thought of with regard to preservation. He said it is really a working river and has been since the first Anglo-Americans arrived in the area and started tapping into it immediately for irrigating the low lands. Ms. Smith said it is important to document that history before it changes, noting the Coy farm as an example. She left some brochures for the Commission. [Timestamp: 6:51 p.m.] 4. 508 REMINGTON STREET, PART 2 STATE TAX CREDIT FINAL REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is the Part 2, Final Review, for Colorado Tax Credits for Historic Preservation for the building at 508 Remington Street. The 508 Remington Street Property was designated as a Fort Collins Landmark on November 18, 2014, with Council’s adoption of Ordinance No. 162, 2014. The property was recognized for its high degree of integrity combined with its significance to the community under Standard C, Design/Construction. The property owner, City of Fort Collins Page 4 January 27, 2016 James MacDowell, has recently completed the restoration and rehabilitation of this circa 1889 building. APPLICANT: James L. MacDowell, III Staff Report Ms. McWilliams presented the staff report, providing an overview of the project, a review of the requirements and criteria, and the standards to be used for evaluation. Applicant Presentation Mr. MacDowell reviewed some of the photos and details in the packet about the work that was done on the exterior and interior of the property. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion Mr. Lingle commented that he hadn’t done many of these state tax credit reviews, and there are always gray areas about what qualifies and what doesn't qualify. He said while 99.5% of what is indicated in the application is clearly wonderful work, he questioned the flooring item, number 23 on packet page 93. The original wood flooring remains, but the owner has elected to recover it, so he wondered whether that qualifies for tax credits to pay for that, as opposed to refinishing the wood floors. Mr. McDowell said that the tax credit he is applying for is predicated upon it being an income- producing property. Part of the reason for recovering the flooring instead of refinishing it was to add a sound reduction membrane. Since it is a multifamily unit, and because there has previously been an extreme degree of sound transition between the floors, this makes it a more livable space for the various occupants of the property. Mr. Lingle said that if the work needs to be either restoration or rehabilitation of the existing historic fabric, he thought that the new flooring materials covering that would not be a qualified expense. Ms. McWilliams said that would be a decision of the Commission as to whether they feel that this work meets the Secretary of Interior Standard for Rehabilitation. Chair Sladek read a section of the staff report on the bottom of packet page 73, which said, “some components of the overall work may be approved and others rejected, however if a rejected component will have, or has had, an adverse effect on the property’s integrity and/or could affect its eligibility, the entire application would usually be rejected”. He went on to ask, if the Commission made a determination that this work will not have an adverse effect on the property’s integrity, are they able to then pull that single item from the category of a qualifying expense without having to reject the entire application. Mr. Lingle said yes, because the staff analysis says you can accept or reject individual work items, and he definitely doesn't think this rises to the level of affecting the integrity of the structure. It's just a matter of whether or not they feel it is a qualifying expenditure for tax credits or not. Chair Sladek asked Staff to confirm that the interpretation he had given was correct, that if they did make a determination of that one item is not a qualified rehabilitation expense, they don't have to reject the whole thing, assuming a determination is made by the Commission that it would not adversely impact the property’s integrity and eligibility. Ms. McWilliams said that was correct, that they could pull out an item such as this, if they felt it was a minor item. If there was a significant change that would impact the building’s eligibility or integrity, the whole thing would be rejected. Ms. Dunn said she remembered hearing at some point that if someone got a dishwasher, for example, that helps make the house or property more usable, that it qualified. She asked for Staff confirmation of that. Ms. McWilliams said that was correct, that part of the rehabilitation standards allows for alterations of historic fabric, and the substitution of new materials, if there is a valid rationale behind it that will promote the longevity of the building and does not detract from the building’s overall integrity and significance. Ms. Dunn said in this case it could be argued that adding City of Fort Collins Page 5 January 27, 2016 the noise barrier enables the house to be fully used. They haven’t damaged or removed the historic floor and it's making the house usable as a multi-unit property, which is how it's qualifying for the extra credits. Ms. Wallace said that the carpet and insulation covering the wood material could also be seen as protecting it, and it could be removed at a later date, if necessary. Mr. Lingle said what Ms. Dunn and Ms. Wallace said made sense, but he was still questioning whether it’s worthy of a tax credit. Ms. Dunn said it was similar to a convenience issue like a dishwasher, where the noise barrier provided the convenience of not being disturbed by sounds above you. Ms. Zink agreed with Ms. Dunn, noting that changing the flooring wasn’t even as consequential as the addition of the French doors in the back, and she didn’t think that was consequential either. Mr. Hogestad also agreed with Ms. Dunn, saying the more livable the house is, the more likely it is to stay in a preserved state. He said it was a minor, insignificant thing, like a dishwasher. Mr. Ernest said while he understands what Mr. Lingle is saying, based on the criteria of the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation, he doesn’t see how the flooring has any significance. Commission Deliberation Ms. Dunn moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission, as a reviewing entity under Colorado Revised Statutes Section 39-22-514, having found the that the rehabilitation and restoration work on the building located at 508 Remington Street in Fort Collins meets the Secretary of Interior Standards, and that the work is been completed within the appropriate period of time, approve the work that has been done in order that Part Two of the State Tax Credit for Historic Preservation can be granted. Ms. Gensmer seconded. Mr. Hogestad commented that understands Mr. Lingle’s concerns, but does not think it is significant enough to cause any harm to the building and he will vote in favor of the motion. Chair Sladek thanked Mr. Lingle for bringing up his concerns, noting that it was a valid question resulting in a good discussion, but that he was also leaning toward voting in favor of the motion. Motion passed 8-0. Chair Sladek thanked the Applicant for the tremendous work on this project, complimenting his attention to detail and great effort. [Timestamp: 6:15 p.m.] 5. CONSIDERATION OF FORT COLLINS LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF THE COY FARMSTEAD, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER, 1041 WOODWARD WAY PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This item is to consider a landmark designation application for the Coy Farmstead, brought forward by several residents of Fort Collins APPLICANT: Gina C. Janett, et al 730 West Oak Street Fort Collins, CO 80521 Chair Sladek and Mr. Lingle recused themselves due to conflicts of interest, and left the meeting. Ms. Dunn disclosed that the Applicant was her neighbor, but she did not believe that would bias her decision. Ms. Gensmer disclosed that she had conducted work on the site, which entailed documenting the resources for an entity that is not the current owner, but did not believe it would impact her decision or sway her either way. Mr. Ernest disclosed that through past volunteer work, he was acquainted with a number of the individuals who signed the petition, but that they had not been in contact with each other. Vice Chair Ernest chaired this item. City of Fort Collins Page 6 January 27, 2016 Staff Report Ms. McWilliams presented a brief staff report, providing some background, and explaining the actions that may be taken by the Commission and by what criteria they will make their decision. Vice Chair Ernest explained the order of proceedings to be followed for this hearing. Applicant Presentation Ms. Janett introduced herself as the person who had secured the signatures, with a lot of help. She said her consultant, Carrol Tunner, actually prepared the application and would speak to that. Ms. Tunner does not reside within the city limits and so she's not one of the signatories, but she was the person that prepared the application. Ms. Janett went on to say that they got the signatures in three days, which is a lot of signatures for short period of time, and that if they had more time they would've had more signatures, but they wanted to submit the application to the City Council on the 19th. They got the signatures by sending some emails and asking people stop by her house. She approached some of her neighbors, and several other people went to their neighbors, and they quickly had 76 signatures. She said it was important to note that there is significant community support for this designation. She said she was happy to present the application to designate the Coy Farmstead as a historic district. She said while the Commission’s actions two weeks ago started a process to potentially designate the Coy Farm Silos as landmarks, she would encourage them to support this application for a historic district. Ms. Janett went on to read some excerpts from the LPC’s webpage. She said the LPC’s mission was “to promote awareness and understanding of, and appreciation for, the value of historic resource preservation in contributing to the quality of life in the City…and also to advise the City Council and City staff with regard to the identification and evaluation of historic resources…and provide information regarding the significance of the resources, the nature and degree of threat to their preservation, and methods for their protection.” She said this directly applied to this application, as they would like to protect these significant resources. She said that while this situation is very political, she would encourage the LPC to leave the politics to City Council and concentrate on the issue at hand, which is initiating the designation process for this significant local historic resource. She said she believed the benefit of designating it as a historic district is that it would better protect the entire farmstead and all four structures, the barn, milk house and both silos. She said as they recently found out, the property owner of this site had originally promised to save and protect all these structures, but changed their minds about the silos. This district designation would protect the silos, as well as the barn and milk house, in the event new management or perhaps a new property owner changes their minds in the future. She said we’ve seen that corporations come and go over time, so today’s owner might not be the same owner in 20 years. They want to protect this site for generations. As an example, she recalled that Hewlett Packard had a number of buildings on Harmony and eventually sold some of them to another corporation. Ms. Janett said it could be easily determined by the wealth of information submitted that the historical significance of the Coy Farmstead, its owners and their family, and the farm structures themselves, meet the criteria for a landmark district as required for designation by City Code. She read from the Code stating that upon receipt of an application for designation, “the Commission shall promptly determine whether the site, structure, object or district meets the criteria of a landmark or landmark district, and, if so, direct staff to investigate the benefits to the City of landmark designation”. She then suggested the Commission make a motion finding that the application for nonconsensual designation for the Coy Farmstead meets the criteria for a landmark district and directing staff to investigate the benefits to the City of a historic district designation. She introduced Ms. Tunner to speak to the merits of the application. Ms. Tunner summarized and highlighted the key information in the designation application, which is included in the packet. She explained the how the farmstead and the Coy family meets Standards A, B and C for Significance, and went on to address the Exterior Integrity. She said the barn, silos and milk house should all be protected. City of Fort Collins Page 7 January 27, 2016 Noting that this was not mentioned in the designation, Ms. Tunner added that this is the last remaining pioneer farmstead along the Poudre River. She gave several examples of farmsteads in the area that had been lost. She said the Strauss Cabin was lost to vandals who burned it. The Strang Farm, which also had a log house on the inside of the structure, was burned by a transient. The Sherwood Stage Station, where the Overland Trail stage used to stop, was burned by transients. The Grout House, which was in the CSU Environmental Learning Center, was burned by the same vandals that burned the Strauss Cabin. She said there could have been a wonderful history trail of all the pioneers along the Poudre River, but it’s all gone and this is the only one left and it needs to be preserved. She said without the silos, it could be a dairy barn, but the silos tell the story of agriculture. She asked the Commission to please designate the district and all of the structures. Owner Comments Steve Stiesmeyer, Director of Real Estate for Woodward, said Woodward has already presented their plan for adaptive reuse to the Landmark Preservation Commission, and had been notified that the LPC will continue that consideration on February 10th. He reminded the Commission that Woodward is extremely concerned that the silos, in their present condition, constitute an imminent threat. He advised the Commission that Woodward does not consent to landmark designation of their property under Fort Collins Code. Therefore, if the process does proceed, this will be a nonconsensual designation. Staff Response Ms. McWilliams did not have a response to the Applicant or Owner comments. She did point out that there was one additional e-mail regarding the designation received today which had been provided to the Commission just prior to the meeting. Commission Questions and Discussion Vice Chair Ernest directed the Member’s attention to the last sentence of the executive summary section of the staff report for this item, found on pages 244-246 of the packet. He read, “The Commission shall determine whether the Coy Farmstead meets the criteria of a landmark district, and if so, direct staff to investigate the benefits to the City of landmark designation.” He then reviewed the standards for determining significance, exterior integrity, and context, as laid out in the staff report. Vice Chair Ernest asked the Applicants to clarify the boundaries for the nomination. He said that on page 247, it says, “The boundaries of the nomination are shown on the scale map titled “Boundary Map”. The “Boundary Map” appears in two different locations in the packet, page 268 and 302. There is also a legal description provided on page 248. He asked whether the legal description corresponded with the “Boundary Map”. Ms. Janett said the maps on pages 269-270 show the plat, and the legal description is Lot 2 of the Woodward Technology Center. Ms. Janett explained the odd-shaped boundary, referring to the markings on the plat map, which is split into two sheets on pages 269-270. Ms. Dunn said that didn’t match what was on the Boundary Map on page 268, which showed a rectangle. Ms. Janett said the Boundary Map on page 268 came from the State, but the boundary they are applying for is the current lot, the current legal description. Ms. Gensmer asked if that was the same as the parcel map on page 267, where the boundary is framed in blue. Ms. Janett said it was the same as the plat map. Ms. Dunn asked if that was the lot defined by the City. Ms. Janett said that was the lot submitted to the City as part of the planning for the property when Woodward bought it, and the data comes from the Assessor’s site. Mr. Hogestad asked whether there were other things on that lot, within the proposed district boundary, that were not to be considered part of the district. Ms. Janett said yes, explaining that the Woodward office building, streets and sidewalks were on the lot, as well as what she believed was space for future retail buildings. It is her understanding that having those other elements in the district would not affect them. What is important is that these structures are in that lot. City of Fort Collins Page 8 January 27, 2016 Ms. Dunn asked Staff if it was possible to have a district that was a subsection of a lot. Ms. McWilliams said it is. Ms. Janett said that as citizen Applicants in a nonconsensual situation, they had no ability access the property and measure out an area to use as the boundaries, so their only option was to use the lot boundaries. She said that in a district, she didn’t think it wouldn’t matter if there were new structures. Mr. Hogestad asked whether there was still enough open property around these structures that there is still a sense of setting. Ms. Janett said that the north and eastern part of the lot was one thing, but these buildings have open space around them, and to the southeast, outside that boundary, is preserved natural areas, so from the natural areas one could imagine they are on farmland next to a river. There is some continuous area that isn’t covered in modern development. Mr. Hogestad mentioned that in the last meeting, the landscape architect showed plans for how that natural area was going to be restored, and that it would be closer than when it was a golf course. He still wondered whether the space around the buildings was farm-like in any sense. Ms. Janett said it wasn’t farm-like, but it’s flat and it’s open. Mr. Hogestad asked whether it was currently paved, sod, dirt or what. Ms. Dunn said it looked like there was an open area with some paving around the seating area Woodward was proposing to create from the silos. Mr. Hogestad noted that could change, depending on a historic district. He asked if Mr. Stiesmeyer could answer that question. Mr. Stiesmeyer said that they have sidewalks today between the barn and the ITS Building (Manufacturing Building and Headquarters) so people can walk to the City property, and also walk near the barn and the silos, which they aren’t going to allow in their current condition. He said they have mulch and a bio-swale for the water in that area, so it isn’t farm-like in any sense between the barn and their property. He also said that they haven’t looked at a survey of this district, but if their new manufacturing buildings are within the district that would be a major concern he would need to discuss with their attorneys. Mr. Yatabe read the definition of “District” from Chapter 14-1. He pointed out that the new structures Woodward had constructed would presumably not have the hallmarks of historic structures eligible for historic designation. Therefore, designation of the entire lot as a landmark district, unless they can make specific findings as to the significance under the criteria, would not be advisable. Mr. Hogestad asked if the exact information (metes and bounds) for the boundary of the district would be needed to make a recommendation tonight. Mr. Yatabe said that any motion should specify what structures they are considering, and they could put some criteria on the surrounding environs in terms of the context. He said they could focus on the structures and discuss their thoughts on what the surrounding environs might be. Vice Chair Ernest observed that there were hands raised and asked Mr. Yatabe about allowing additional comment, now that they were in the Commission discussion portion of the proceedings. Mr. Yatabe said they had latitude if they wanted to open it back up for citizen comment. Mr. Hogestad said that if the comments pertained to the boundaries that would be something the Commission ought to hear. Ms. Tunner said that, in historic preservation terms, the modern buildings are considered non-contributing buildings in the district. She said the major public view of the farm structures will be from the natural areas trail and from the south looking north at them. Those views retain the setting. She added that from the north parking lot between the two new buildings, the barn and silos are framed beautifully. Ms. Janett said the profiles of the new buildings kind of mimic the profile shape of the top of the barn, though they are quite different in age. Ms. Dunn said on page 144 of the packet from the last meeting, there was an overhead view that shows the relationship of the barn and the silos and the planned patio with the new buildings. Vice Chair Ernest recalled seeing that illustration. Mr. Hogestad suggested that instead of getting stuck on boundaries, they discuss the setting and the relationship to the surroundings such as the river and the restored natural area. City of Fort Collins Page 9 January 27, 2016 Ms. Dunn recommended they discuss Significance first, and talk about these issues when they get to Setting. Ms. Dunn said the Coy Farmstead was definitely significant under Standard A, Events. She said they would be hard pressed to find other structures still standing that were more significant for the founding of Fort Collins than these structures. Mr. Hogestad said these structures represent broad patterns, specifically settlement patterns and economic patterns, not seen in many structures that are already designated landmarks. Ms. Dunn said there are several themes, including the college, the founding of the city, water rights, and agricultural themes, which are critical to Northern Colorado. Vice Chair Ernest said that under Standard B, Persons and Groups, that John G. Coy was significant for many activities. He and his wife were among those who traveled to this area before the railroad, coming by covered wagon. He founded the farm, was involved in local government activities, took part in the creation and sustenance of the Harmony Mill and was active in the founding of the state agricultural college, now CSU, back in the 1870’s. He contributed a great deal to the community and even to the state, having run for Governor. Ms. Gensmer agreed and added that the agricultural nature of the properties tie directly to the actions and patterns that he was involved in and add to his significance. Ms. Zink agreed. Mr. Hogestad said there are very few buildings that are associated with a person who contributed not only to agriculture, but also politics, economics and education. He said it’s a rare thing to find a building, or a collection of buildings, that can tell that story. Ms. Wallace said that Standard C was also pertinent with the design and construction, particularly since the masonry was local, from Masonville, which ties to a connection across the Front Range. Ms. Gensmer agreed, and said these structures tie directly to the language in the code, that they “embody the identifiable characteristics of a type, period or method of construction”. Vice Chair Ernest turned the Commission’s attention to Exterior Integrity, and the seven aspects. Ms. Gensmer argued that Standard A is met in that the structures maintain their location relative to the river in the flatlands. Ms. Dunn noted the exception of the milk house, which has been moved. Ms. Gensmer went on to say they retain the integrity of Design, Materials, Workmanship and Association. She wasn’t sure about Setting with respect to the new development. Mr. Hogestad said it retains its setting in the broader sense, adding that while there is importance to space between buildings, the bigger view includes the river and the lowlands associated with the river. He added that the restored areas that the landscape architect had proposed bring it closer to the setting that would have been recognized at the time the barn was built. Ms. Dunn agreed on all of the standards that Ms. Gensmer mentioned, but said she does struggle with setting, because of the encroachment of the new buildings. She said, if they could say “setting as we face the river”, she could support that, but struggles with setting in general. Mr. Hogestad agreed that the view toward the river and natural areas are very much the way they were when the farmstead was new, and said he wasn’t convinced that it wouldn’t qualify under Setting. Vice Chair Ernest pointed out that they also need to consider Context, and read its definition under Chapter 14-1. He said this meets the definition with regard to “scarcity or profusion of a particular resource type”, because there are so few historic farmsteads still existing in the Fort Collins city limits, especially along the Poudre River. He went on to comment that while he struggles with Setting, for a number of years, including when it was placed on the state register of historic properties, it was part of a golf course which is even less natural than what is planned. Ms. Zink recalled that the Commission had discussed the setting when they were initially reviewing the layout of the proposed Woodward site a couple of years ago, and at that time, they had decided it was an acceptable impact on the setting. Mr. Hogestad said there was still a relationship to the river in terms of the setting, and that relationship was a big part of the farmstead, even in terms of supplying the gravel and sand that went into the building materials. Ms. Zink agreed and also added that John Coy chose that setting specifically for its proximity to the river, but not wanting to be too close to the river yielded the sweep of land between the river and the farmstead. Vice Chair Ernest agreed with the comments about the relationship of the farmstead to the Poudre River. He pointed out that water was scarce in the Great Plains, especially in an era before major irrigation projects got underway, so a farmer would have to City of Fort Collins Page 10 January 27, 2016 have a plan to get water to their crops, as well as for domestic purposes and for livestock. Ms. Dunn said Mr. Hogestad had convinced her that the Setting was retained, based on the importance of the river and the spacing. Ms. Dunn then asked about Feeling. Ms. Wallace said she often considers Setting and Feeling to be interrelated, but she quoted from the Code where it said Feeling is the “historic sense of a particular period or time”, and said taking the three buildings together makes one congruent feeling. She said was still torn about the Setting, but the Code indicates that not all seven qualities must be in place for the integrity to be considered intact. She cautioned against getting bogged down in specific details, since it appears that the Commission feels the integrity as a whole is intact. Ms. Zink agreed. Ms. Dunn asked if the motion needs to include which specific standards were met for exterior integrity, or if saying that it meets a preponderance of the criteria would suffice. Mr. Yatabe said that Chapter 14 of the Code contains some brief instruction as to what the Commission is to find, basically saying that they are to examine whether or not the district meets the criteria of a landmark or landmark district, and if so to direct staff to investigate the benefits of a designation. In terms of whether or not it meets the criteria of a landmark district, he suggested that they are able to state the more general headings for Significance, Exterior Integrity and Context that they feel are satisfied, and state the reasons as discussed in terms of what the support is for that finding. In making a motion, they need to set forth whether it is eligible, and list the general criteria it meets, or if not, provide the reason. Ms. Dunn asked if they can list the five that they are certain of, and then say “and possibly also…” for those that they are unsure about. Mr. Yatabe said that the motion should include the criteria they believe are satisfied at this time, and why it meets the eligibility requirements, but including criteria they are unsure of doesn’t add to the motion in terms of determining eligibility. Mr. Hogestad suggested that before a motion is put forth, the Commission should be clear on which standards they believe the properties meet. Ms. Dunn said that in terms of Significance, they’ve all agreed that it meets A (Events), B (Persons/Groups) and C (Design/Construction). In terms of Exterior Integrity, she said they have all agreed on Location, Design, Materials, Workmanship and Association, but Setting and Feeling have not been agreed upon by everyone. Mr. Hogestad said that he still feels strongly that Setting should be included. Ms. Wallace asked whether they could just say that it meets five of the seven criteria, but Mr. Yatabe said that if there is some disagreement on what falls into those five, it would be unclear on the record. He suggested the motion can be based on the more over-arching categories. For example, for Exterior Integrity, it says that “all seven qualities do not need to be present…to be eligible as long as the overall sense of past time and place is evident”. As long as they are able to agree on the larger category, that would be fine. Mr. Yatabe also said that they need to define the boundary of the district before putting a motion forward. Mr. Hogestad said that without a survey or anything, they don’t have a legal description, so he wondered how the boundary could be described. Mr. Yatabe said he would need to hear an idea to determine whether it would be sufficient. Mr. Hogestad asked if it could just be a boundary that includes these buildings, and list what the buildings are. Ms. Dunn said she’d like to include some space around them also. Ms. Dunn again referred to the picture on page 144 of the packet from the last meeting, and pointed out a triangle of sidewalks that could potentially serve as a boundary. She also pointed out a waterway in that picture, and wondered if that was the original ditch, and if so it would be nice to include it as a significant piece of the surroundings. Ms. Zink said the ditch could be something they could ask Staff to investigate. Mr. Hogestad said since they are considering a district, that would include some amount of property that could include the ditch. Ms. Zink asked whether it should include the land that is City property that extends down to the river. Ms. Dunn agreed, since that was originally part of the Coys’ land. Mr. Hogestad said that since they are talking about the importance of the river, he would think it should include that land. Ms. Tunner explained that the ditch initially came out of the Poudre River up by the power plant. The City is now going to remove, or has removed, that to make room for a water park. She said the ditch came down 3rd Street and crossed under Lincoln, and traveled on the west side of the Back Porch Café, which she thought was still there. She said she believed Woodward had removed the ditch from the Woodward property. Ms. Tunner asked Mr. Stiesmeyer for clarification on that, and he indicated (off mic) the ditch is no longer there at all, either on Woodward property or on the west side of the Back Porch. City of Fort Collins Page 11 January 27, 2016 Ms. Dunn asked whether the boundary needed to be part of the motion, and Mr. Yatabe indicated that it should be included to determine what the district will be. Ms. Dunn attempted to define the boundary as the area within the larger triangle of sidewalks she had pointed out earlier, and then extending to the river. There was discussion about how wide that should be, whether it would stop at the river or at the property line, and whether it would include the natural area. Ms. Kadrich expressed concern about adding the natural areas portion to the district, noting that she was not sure about the conditions that were placed upon the transfer of that land from Woodward to the City’s Natural Areas. Ms. Dunn wondered if they could define the district as bounded on the northwest side by the sidewalk on the left, bounded on the northeast by that sidewalk, and bounded on the south to southwest by the property line, so that it would stop before the natural area. Ms. Kadrich said that would be helpful since the Natural Areas Department was not represented at the meeting. She offered to get more information about that arrangement to the Commission at some point, if it would be helpful. Mr. Hogestad asked whether, as part of asking the Staff to investigate the benefits of designation, they can also direct Staff to look at what the district boundaries would be. Ms. Kadrich wondered if a motion was made with the boundary described by Ms. Dunn, whether the Commission could amend the boundary later when they had additional information. Mr. Yatabe said they could direct Staff to investigate the boundary, and make the motion contingent upon that investigation. Commission Deliberation Ms. Dunn moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission find that the Coy Farmstead District meets the criteria for Fort Collins landmark designation under the standards for determining significance in section 14–5, Subsection 2, of the Fort Collins Municipal Code, finding that it is significant for Events, Persons/Groups and Design/Construction, and finding that under the standards for determining exterior integrity in Section 14–5, Subsection 4, of the Municipal Code, the site retains its exterior integrity and that the Landmark Preservation Commission directs Staff to investigate the benefits to the City of landmark designation and appropriate boundary lines for the district in accordance with Municipal Code section 14-21. Ms. Zink seconded. Mr. Hogestad asked whether there was any concern that they have not identified upon which of the standards for exterior integrity they were basing their finding. Ms. Wallace said that since all seven do not have to be present, and they definitely agreed on a majority of them, she was comfortable saying it retains its integrity. Mr. Hogestad asked if they should state the five they agreed on in the motion, or if it was clear. Ms. Dunn said her understanding was that they should just state the umbrella category. Ms. Zink agreed that since there will be two hearings, they can hammer out the individual aspects then. Mr. Hogestad said since their discussion will be part of the minutes maybe that was fine. Mr. Yatabe said the motion was fine the way it was phrased with the over-arching categories. He said this is the preliminary finding that would move this forward into further discussion and investigation based on Staff information. If this moves forward through the process laid out in the Code, eventually it would end with a recommendation to Council, at which point all of their findings would go into that recommendation. Ms. Zink said it would be a big move on the part of the Landmark Preservation Commission to make a nonconsensual designation, and it was not something they should do lightly. Mr. Hogestad said their discussion bears out the importance of the farmstead and its relationship to far-ranging patterns of development and growth that aren’t typically seen in an individual designation. Ms. Zink said she hoped Woodward was listening and would change their thinking a little bit. Vice Chair Ernest said the historic value of this property has been identified many times in the past and isn’t at issue. Ms. Dunn said she knew this was a significant part of Fort Collins history, but through reading the nomination and participating in the discussion, she was overwhelmed by the number of important themes for Northern Colorado, Fort Collins and Larimer County that were woven into this property. She said since she’s been on this Commission, she hasn’t seen any property with anywhere close to this level of significance. Mr. Hogestad also acknowledged the effort made on the nomination, and all the signatures collected, which showed the incredible support for the farmstead. Motion passed 6-0. City of Fort Collins Page 12 January 27, 2016 [Timestamp: 7:36 p.m.] Vice Chair Ernest called for a five minute break. Chair Sladek and Mr. Lingle returned to the meeting. 6. NORTH COLLEGE PEDESTRIAN PATH – SECTION 106 COMPLIANCE REVIEW – PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION This item was pulled from the agenda by City Staff on the day of the meeting. 7. RECOMMENDATION ON AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 14 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. Staff Report Ms. Kadrich said that this item went before the Council for a first reading. She recalled that in the last meeting with the Commission on this item, there had been a general agreement about portions of the amendment, but the main concern had been that the changes were proposed to be retroactive to the first of the year. She explained that Council had passed the ordinance on first reading, and had removed the retroactive portion of it. She said the Council’s discussion had centered primarily on allowing some procedural modifications to this section of the Code, particularly setting the timeframes and allowing, but not requiring, an option for the Commission to skip the second hearing if they chose to do so. Chair Sladek asked for clarification on the removal of the retroactive portion, and Ms. Kadrich confirmed that the retroactive date was removed from the ordinance on first reading. Mr. Yatabe said that the ordinance could still be changed, so if the Commission wished to address the retroactive issue in their discussion, they could do so. Chair Sladek noted that at the last meeting, the Commission had voted to defer this item to a later date, to discuss along with a larger discussion of the Preservation Code. Since Council ended up passing the ordinance, he asked whether the Commission was now being afforded another opportunity to make a recommendation prior to Council’s second reading. Ms. Kadrich confirmed this was correct. There was a consensus among the Members that they did not need to see the staff presentation from the last meeting again, as it was included in the packet. Mr. Ernest asked for clarification about Section 14-22(b)(2) of the proposed ordinance. His understanding was that this new ordinance would apply to individual structures within existing national landmarked districts, such as the Old Town District and the Laurel School District. Based on the way the ordinance is written, he wondered whether this really refers to the creation of new districts as a whole, rather than to existing structures and existing historic districts. For example, in the Laurel School Districts, there must be hundreds of structures, some of which are designated, some eligible, some contributing and some noncontributing. He said he was unclear as to whether this ordinance is intended to address those existing structures in those existing national landmarked districts, as opposed to entire landmarked districts, particularly those that are newly proposed. Ms. Kadrich recalled that the proposed amendment was intended to apply to those that had already become part of a district, whether on the national or state level, not a district that hadn’t sought that status yet. Mr. Yatabe added that in terms of the placement of the amendments to the Code, these sections amend the current designation procedure, but they don’t change fundamentally what may be put forward for designation, whether consensual or nonconsensual. City of Fort Collins Page 13 January 27, 2016 Mr. Ernest said there are a relatively small number of individual national or state landmarked distinct properties, but there are many that could fall within those districts. Chair Sladek said this will also impact those properties within the districts that are contributing to the national and state register districts. If the LPC feels there is a need to put forward a nonconsensual designation recommendation to Council on an individual property within the Laurel School District, for example, this will apply. Even though there may only be a few individually listed properties, there are also hundreds and hundreds of buildings within the individual districts to which this will also apply. Chair Sladek stated that the language of Section 2 seems to clearly apply to individual buildings, sites, structures or objects, as well as those that contribute to a district that is already listed. Ms. Kadrich confirmed that was the intent. Mr. Yatabe agreed that was the way the ordinance was written. Mr. Lingle said he didn’t see any wording that said it would apply to contributing structures within a district, and thought that meant they would have to be individually listed. Chair Sladek read a section of the ordinance that stated, “…where the eligibility of the site, structure, object, or district is supported by its current individual or district listing…”, and said that any district listing will include some contributing and some noncontributing properties. He said that didn’t need to be specified in the Code, because it would be understood that there are two different types of resources within any district, those that contribute to its eligibility and those that do not. He added that it’s rare to have a district where everything within it is contributing to the eligibility, since there are always a number of houses, for example, that have been modified or are infill projects that are non-contributing. Ms. Zink asked about adding the word “contributing” to the ordinance, but there was a consensus among the Members that it was not necessary, since it would be extremely unlikely they would ever put forward a nonconsensual designation on a noncontributing building. Public Input Rheba Massey said that she was at the Council meeting when this was discussed, and pointed out that the vote was 4-3. She thought that Councilman Cuniff brought up an excellent recommendation, as one of the three that voted against it, that more time should be taken to consider this. She said she had been doing some research on demolition review ordinances around the nation, looking at Savannah and Charleston. She pointed out that a tree was growing in the middle of one of the Coy Silos, and that was neglect. She said that a demolition review ordinance should include a demolition neglect ordinance. She asked whether anyone is going out to make sure these sites aren’t being neglected for 20 years, leaving them vulnerable to being declared imminently dangerous. She also asked if Fort Collins is using the uniform building code for historic buildings, because that looks at a historic building differently than a new one. She said she had a lot of questions about what this demolition ordinance is trying to do, and said she would like to see City Staff do some more research on how all of this comes together, rather than putting this forward at this time without really addressing all of the issues that need to be addressed. She agreed with the three Council members who voted against this. Chair Sladek pointed out that this item has to do with the landmark designation portion of the Code, and asked whether Ms. Massey wanted to speak directly to that. She said she thinks the whole Code needs to be improved and made stronger by Staff, in order to avoid having these structures demolished by neglect and to avoid problems like the Woodward Silos. She said there needs to be more in-depth research, and that there is a lot of information on the Internet about this. She said this is premature without looking at these other issues. She would like to see this postponed and looked at as a whole, instead of just this “nit-picky” issue brought about because of Woodward Governor. It deserves more research. Commission Questions and Discussion Mr. Lingle said that Ms. Massey’s comments reflected the sentiments they forwarded to Council. They had said if they are going to be reviewing the preservation ordinance and related Code standards as a whole, the LPC’s recommendation to Council was to take this as part of the bigger picture and review the whole thing comprehensively. At the LPC retreat last week, they heard that City of Fort Collins Page 14 January 27, 2016 the majority of Council seemed to misunderstand what the LPC’s motion was, thinking that they had just asked for more time, when really what they asked for was to study it more comprehensively. He said there was a sentiment expressed that they didn’t address what Council wanted addressed in a timely way, and they intended to move forward with or without a recommendation from the LPC. Mr. Lingle said that his overall sentiment hasn’t changed, and that they need to take a comprehensive approach, and this is a piece of that. Ms. Dunn agreed with Ms. Massey’s comments about demolition by neglect, which is something they need to look at, but is not part of this Code. She said they are already going to be looking at the Code comprehensively in the coming months. These changes are mostly about clarifying the timeline for everyone involved, and she doesn’t have a problem doing that. If they find, based on a larger review later, that it makes sense to change the timelines, they could do that. She said she thinks it’s fair to put a cap on the completely open-ended Council response time, to make the process more predictable for applicants and owners. Chair Sladek said he agreed with Ms. Dunn. He said his concern is that Council has had their first reading and have a second one coming up soon, and if the Commission decides again to put this off to a larger Code discussion, they are in effect opting out of making a recommendation, and Council will probably go ahead and approve it without their comments. He said they need to decide whether they want to make a recommendation, or just leave it to Council, in which case he thinks they will have failed at the task before them. He said he would like to come to some conclusion tonight, and that he would prefer to support these procedural housecleaning issues. He agreed that the timelines need to be better defined, and said he is far more comfortable knowing Council has dropped the retroactive adoption. He is comfortable moving ahead with an approval of this as proposed. The larger Code review is going to happen either way. Ms. Gensmer agreed with Chair Sladek, and noted that she had suggested at the last meeting that they could approve this now and then review it again in the larger context of Code reform as it evolves. She also agreed that she was more comfortable moving forward with this tonight, now that the retroactive part was removed. Mr. Hogestad agreed with Ms. Dunn. He had initial reservations about the public input portion of it, but now it is clear that it is the Commission’s option whether or not to hold a second hearing, so he is okay with the proposed changes. Mr. Ernest said he was also willing to support it, and that they will have a larger discussion down the road. He said it would be interesting to look at how other jurisdictions treat properties that are already on the national register and their state registers, and how their approach compares to ours. Ms. Wallace agreed with what had already been stated, and thinks this is one piece of a larger project, but right now the focus needs to be on giving a recommendation or input to Council. Ms. Zink agreed to support this change at this time. She also pointed out that this ordinance was last reviewed in 2014, and that they do examine the Code on a regular basis. Chair Sladek agreed, adding that the Code was recent, and they are not working from a Code that is 10-20 years old. Ms. Kadrich added that there was a lot of work put into the Code update in 2014. At that time, they did look at best practices, and Staff spent a lot of time comparing our Code to others. The challenge is that some of the processes have not been tested. The Woodward situation is a very good example of that. There has not been a nonconsensual designation that has gone through that process. It’s only when you start working through all the steps of a process and laying out a timeline that the gaps become clear. She said that as the Director of Planning, Development and Transportation she would not normally bring Code amendments forward separate and apart from a more comprehensive review, unless it seemed like there was a gap identified that was atypical. She said typically, there are timelines associated with processes; they identify whether or not processes are concurrent; and she is not aware of any other section of the Code where a board is asked to look at the same information twice in a row before forwarding to Council. She supports the Commission’s recommendation to look at these other things, and agrees that property maintenance has been a challenge, and there could be steps they need to take to strengthen those sections, as well as this section of the Code. City of Fort Collins Page 15 January 27, 2016 Chair Sladek appreciated Ms. Kadrich’s comments, and said that served as a great example of how a project that stirs up some controversy can result in some improvements to the Code when they start looking at the bigger picture. They aren’t tied together in some nefarious way, it just exposes areas of Code that need to be looked at more closely and revised. Chair Sladek acknowledged Ms. Massey’s comments about demolition by neglect, saying that was different than what they are looking at in terms of this Code change, but that it was certainly an important issue they need to look at and address. He said no one at the state or federal level ever comes by to look at a state or national register property to check on its condition or any changes that have been made. Ms. Zink said that only happens if there is an easement and grant funds or tax funds are involved, but that’s rare. Commission Deliberation Ms. Dunn moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to City Council acceptance of the proposed Code changes to Chapter 14, with the caveat that the Code changes should go into effect after the City Council has made its decision, and not retroactively to a prior date. Mr. Hogestad seconded. Motion passed 7-1, with Lingle dissenting. [Timestamp: 8:14 p.m.] • OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Lingle pointed out that the Demo/Alt item on the Consent Agenda tonight was the second property in a row that came back with a differing professional opinion about its eligibility, which reinforced for him that they need to consider taking steps to have the ability to do that research before the initial determination is made. Chair Sladek agreed that there are a couple of things that would help, one of which was a matter of perspective. He said they may need to have a discussion on what they are going to view as eligible or not eligible. He said on that one, he thought if the owner had come in wanting to landmark the property, they would have said yes. He said they have probably made far more decisions of non-eligibility than those that are eligible. He acknowledged it is a difficult decision to make that will impact the property owner. Mr. Lingle added that there may be different bars of what eligibility means for different people depending on what their backgrounds are. Ms. Zink asked if it were possible to change the site form used by the consultants to be geared more toward the local perspective. Mr. Lingle said he didn’t know that our bar should be lower in terms of determining eligibility. Chair Sladek said that is something they should discuss, because most communities do have a lower bar. He said the local perspective will be different than the state or national level. Mr. Lingle asked whether that diminished the value of all of the designated properties, because it’s not as hard to be eligible. Chair Sladek asked whether they might want to think about changing their approach so it isn’t just the Chair and the CDNS Director making these decisions. He mentioned that Boulder’s process is to have a committee of three people from the Landmark Preservation Commission, with two that must be architects and a third that doesn’t, and planning staff isn’t involved in the decision. Mr. Ernest said it was ironic that the current process is meant to expedite as many of the applications as possible, and the great majority go forward administratively, but there are those instances where it’s a tough call that puts pressure on a couple of people to make the decision as to whether to forward it to the entire Commission. While they don’t want to neglect the possibility of a local landmark, they also don’t want to put the property owner through the rigor of the process unnecessarily. If there were a way to both expedite and strengthen the initial review that may be something the Commission should look at. Chair Sladek asked Mr. Leeson, CDNS Director, for his perspective. Mr. Leeson said they plan to get consulting help to do an audit of the processes and Historic Preservation Code which could identify a path for making improvements. He said the discussion about whether or not a property is eligible, and the difference between whether it’s consensual or nonconsensual, is an interesting dialogue. He City of Fort Collins Page 16 January 27, 2016 said from the public standpoint, it seems that’s where some of the confusion and subjectivity of the process comes in. Whether someone is volunteering to have their property designated or not shouldn’t make a difference in the decision. In reality, the value and integrity of the historic structure should determine its eligibility, not the process that it is going through. Chair Sladek said he recognizes that is something they need to look at. He said consultants have more time and ability to research the property at a deeper level. Mr. Lingle said that it may have more to do with perspective. • ADJOURNMENT Chair Sladek adjourned the meeting at 8:24 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by Gretchen Schiager.