Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 02/10/2016City of Fort Collins Page 1 February 10, 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 February 10, 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, Frick, Sladek ABSENT: None STAFF: Bzdek, Dorn, Yatabe, Leeson, Schiager, Kadrich, Schmidt • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. • AGENDA REVIEW Mr. Yatabe requested to have the Landmark Apartments item, currently #6 on the agenda, moved to follow item #2. Mr. Yatabe had a conflict on that item, so Judy Schmidt would be stepping in as legal counsel, and he hoped to allow her to leave earlier. Chair Sladek asked whether that was acceptable for the Applicant. Mr. Yatabe said he didn’t know, but that the start time for the meeting is 5:30, and beyond that no specific times are given for individual items. Mr. Hogestad said that the item was supposed to be so late on the agenda that he was concerned there may be members of the public who were planning to Landmark Preservation Commission Approved by Commission at their April 13, 2016 meeting. City of Fort Collins Page 2 February 10, 2016 speak on that item, and wouldn’t know it had been changed. Chair Sladek suggested considering the request after the Woodward item, and there was no objection. • DISCUSSION AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 27, 2016 REGULAR MEETING. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the January 27, 2016 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the minutes of the January 27, 2016 regular meeting. Ms. Gensmer seconded. Motion passed 9-0. [Timestamp: 5:44 p.m.] 2. COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER –CONTINUATION OF 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 Chair Sladek and Mr. Lingle recused themselves on this item due to conflicts of interest. Vice Chair Ernest acted as Chair for this item. Vice Chair Ernest asked whether there would be any presentations other than the Staff presentation. Carolyn White, Land Use Counsel for the Applicant, said they had a brief presentation they would like to deliver at the conclusion of public comment. Vice Chair Ernest agreed to that change in the order of proceedings. Ms. Gensmer disclosed that she had conducted cultural resource work on the site in 2013 for an entity who was not Woodward. She did not believe this had influenced her in any way with regard to this item. Ms. Dunn disclosed friendships with several historians who were in the audience, but did not think it would bias her decision in any way. Vice Chair Ernest disclosed that he was acquainted with several members of the Save Our Silos group, but they had not been in contact on this issue. Mr. Yatabe noted for the record that while Mr. Frick was not present for the previous meeting on this item, he had reviewed the record completely and was up to speed on the events and proceedings that have occurred to this point. Mr. Frick confirmed this. Staff Report Mr. Leeson, Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services, presented the staff report. He reviewed the information in the packet that had been provided by Staff in response to the Commission’s requests at or since the January 13 meeting. Mr. Leeson also responded to a Commission question about why the Historic Structure Assessment (HSA) was substituted for the required Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form prepared by a third party. He explained that decision was made by him, Chair Sladek, and Karen McWilliams based on their review of the HSA prepared by Chair Sladek and Dave Lingle. They determined that all of the information that was contained in the HSA was virtually identical to what would have been included in the Architectural Inventory Form. They concluded that it would have been duplicative and unnecessary to re-do the document, so they accepted the substitution in the submittal requirements. City of Fort Collins Page 3 February 10, 2016 Mr. Leeson then reviewed the role of the LPC for this hearing, both for the members and for the public. As per Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code, the LPC has only two options in reviewing any demolition/alteration permit which are to approve, or approve with conditions. The Commission may impose conditions of approval which may include, but are not limited to, requirements for the property owner to provide additional information and to document the historic nature of the structures. He also explained that there is a second process, the nonconsensual designation process, which needs to be resolved before a demolition permit can be issued for the silos. Therefore, just because the Commission will approve or approve with conditions, that does not give the Applicant permission to immediately demolish the silos. The nonconsensual designation process must be finalized before any demolition permit will be issued. Public Input Vice Chair Ernest reviewed the order of proceedings for the hearing, as well as the appeal process, and noted that the Applicant had requested to do their presentation after the public input, and that request was granted. Vice Chair Ernest asked how many people would like to speak, and based on the count, determined not to set a time limit for public comments. Gina Janett spoke on behalf of herself and the Save our Silos group. She thanked the LPC for initiating the designation of the district. She said they have collected additional signatures both on paper and online. She pointed out that the Commission also had the option to delay again to the next meeting, which would still be within the 45 day period. She touched on some of the major contributions of John Coy, noting that he was one of the earliest pioneer settlers and farmers in Fort Collins. She explained he is tied to the founding of CSU, Roosevelt National Forest, and Larimer County government. She said his water rights on the Poudre River are some of the oldest in the state at 13th in priority. He also provided feed and hay to Camp Collins military and allowed Arapahoe Chief Friday to camp on his land. She said that if a demolition is ultimately allowed to occur, she believes it is critical to thoroughly document the silos in the form of a HABS/HAER (Historic American Building Survey & Historic American Engineering Report). She said the letter she had written to the Commission (which was added to the packet), explained more about that, but among other things, it would include a focus on structures and processes rather than buildings, tracing the evolution of the engineering practices and their manifestation at a particular site, and would include drawings that depict the machinery and its placements, as well as the flow of raw materials and product. These are silos that had once been filled with grain and had mechanics that moved back and forth, and this would be appropriate information to find out. She said they would like to ask the Commission to add a condition of approval to the demolition application to have the silos carefully dismantled and moved to a nearby location where they could be placed on new foundations, repaired and restored. She said they think this might meet the needs of the Applicant to change the visual landscape from their office building. Since Woodward’s request is to dismantle the silos and use a portion of the materials on the patio, they might as well dismantle them carefully and put them back together on a new location. Then they could be preserved for generations to come. They believe this is best way for a win- win solution for Woodward to put forth a good community partnership and for the community to preserve its history. If the permit is approved, she asked the Commission to impose a condition that the interpretive signage should include a photo of the silos. She asked that they save the silos and save Fort Collins’ history. Harry Rose said the silos and site are iconic and represent a very important part of the history of Fort Collins. He would like to see them preserved where they stand. However, if the Commission approves the demolition permit, he would like a condition that they be carefully dismantled, moved, stabilized and restored. Carol Hossan said she supports the previous comments. She said as an artist, the visibility of the silos and the site against the modern architecture is so striking, that if they were restored where they are, Woodward would likely end up in quite a few architectural magazines. She said the juxtaposition of the very historic silos with so much meaning to the community against the modern buildings of Woodward would show past, present and future, and would show Woodward was living up to its original promise and show the citizens of Fort Collins how important their history is. These silos and the barn are very visible from Lemay, the river, the bike path loop that gets close to the silos, and so many beautiful angles, that it would be a win-win if Woodward would change their minds and restore them in place. City of Fort Collins Page 4 February 10, 2016 Lisa Ashbach talked about the petitions that were being circulated. She said they have 20 additional signatures for the nonconsensual designation, which they won’t submit tonight, but she wanted the Commission to be aware of it. They are also circulating petitions online and in paper form speaking to the dangerous versus imminently dangerous issue before the Building Review Board, for which they have 35 paper signatures and 80 online signatures. She provided copies of those for the Commission. She said they were grateful to have the time that this process allows to get the word out to the general public and provide outlets for people to make their voices known. She said the silos mean something to this community and the loss of any historic resource is a significant loss to the community. She referenced the engineering reports that had been provided to the Commission, and added that despite the deterioration of the silos, all of the engineers retained by Woodward and the City agree that the silos can be stabilized and restored, and that is the proper course of action. She urged the Commission to take action that was consistent with the engineers’ opinions and public opinion, which is that the silos were worth saving and all historic resources in Fort Collins are valuable. Wendy Campbell, a photographer, said this site is the gateway to Fort Collins from U.S. 14, and when you stand on the Mulberry Bridge, you now see a stunning tableau of a farmstead, with a beautiful office building behind it. She said if you Photoshop out the silos, you no longer see a farmstead, in fact you can’t really see the barn. What disturbs her most is that the Coy property is so precious. As a founder of CSU, Mr. Coy and his wife came here in 1862, which was the year of the Morrill Land-Grant Act that established state universities like CSU. She said when you see the tableau from the Mulberry Bridge which has the big National Heritage Area sign you get a feel for the introduction to Fort Collins which was an agricultural powerhouse with the sugar beets, and other agricultural products that came from our area. Woodward has an amazing opportunity to say they have a corporate headquarters next to a farmstead that looks fantastic. It doesn’t look fantastic without the silos. She encouraged the Commission to look at the issue in that light, considering aesthetics as well as the history. Heather Wolhart said while she appreciates what the LPC and the public are doing, they have lost sight of the important thing in preservation, which is people. She also noted that it was not the Coy-Hoffman farmstead, it was the Coy farmstead. John Hoffman was John Coy’s son-in-law. John Hoffman built the silos well after the farm was established and running. She said the first silo was built the year John Coy passed away and that the silos had nothing to do with the true founding history of the farmstead. The silos were built as a tool for a very short-lived time in the history of this valley. This valley was never a profitable place for feeding cattle. The silos were built by John Hoffman, who was a miller, and the Hoffman Mill was quickly torn down for the Mulberry Bridge, and no one tried to stop that. She said it was a four-year experiment in which two silos went up and they tried to feed cattle, but it didn’t work here, as it was not cattle country. She said her dad wondered if he were still farming there and wanted to take out the circular sprinklers that he installed in the 60’s, whether those would also be considered historic. She said circular sprinklers are a water-wasting tool that was put in place at the time, but now they are being done away with. She said her father took the sprinklers out when he stopped growing sod there and turned it back into a sheep farm. Speaking as a family member, she said John Coy would be appalled at this effort to preserve the silos. John Coy stood for progress and future thinking, which is why he wanted to establish CSU – to move forward. If you want to preserve the history of the real meaning of the Coy homestead, look at all Woodward has done to move progress forward, and how much time, money and energy they are spending to acknowledge the value of the barn and to create an amazing plan to save it and make it valuable. John Coy would have been thrilled with repurposing his property, rather than letting it deteriorate through lack of positive use. He was a forward thinker, not stuck in the past or stuck on sentiment. Preservation is good, but balance is important. She also pointed out that the picture of the Coy-Hoffman ditch shows the ditch in the wrong place. Lynne Hull, an artist, said she had spent a lot of time in museums. She wondered what would be in those museums if everyone felt we didn’t need to preserve our history. She said saving the silos is more under the heading of saving history, not just throwing away worn out tools. Carol Tunner said she did not intend to speak, and does not have prepared speech, but she wanted to refute Heather Wolhart’s comments. She said as a professional historian for 30 years, she wrote the state register nomination. She got a lot of her information from historical resources, books and surveys, but mainly from Ansel Watrous’ “History of Larimer County” and conversations with Heather’s father, Jim Hoffman, and her mother. She said John Coy did build the first silo in 1912, and died after that. The second silo was built by the family in 1913 when the vertical stave silos first came out. She referenced City of Fort Collins Page 5 February 10, 2016 other vertical stave silos built in Boulder and Westminster in 1913, noting that is when construction methods changed from slip silos. She also commented that she had several photos and paintings of the barn and silos, one of which was painted by someone in an art group from Greeley who came here specifically to paint it. She said she had spoken with a private property rights advocate, who had even said that in this case, Woodward knew the property was designated on the state register. She referred to the April 2, 2014 plans Woodward submitted to the City, and pointed out where it says “silos to remain and be preserved”, and said it wasn’t until December that they decided to take them down. She said if they promised to save them, put it in their plans, got $23.6 million from the City to mitigate the effects of the site, all the while telling the City they would preserve them, they should back their word. Bill Whitley said he is concerned about the precedent it would set if we allow people to tear down a state landmark. Randy Pope said while the points others have made are excellent, for him it boils down to a single question he would like to ask of Woodward. All the documents and plans said the silos would be preserved, and to change that after receiving money from the City seems disingenuous at best and maybe just double-talk or lying. He’d like to know why, and doesn’t buy the fact that they can’t be stabilized, because he personally knows of several silos that were in worse shape that have been stabilized. He said it was important for the Commission to ask that question and hopefully Woodward will answer why they told the powers-that-be one thing and then decided to do something else. Vice Chair Ernest paused the public comment to say that the Commission appreciates all the input, but asked that the comments be kept at a level that is respectful of everyone. Myrne Watrous said she doesn’t see any reason to move the silos from where they are as someone suggested this evening. She said she knows for a fact that tools have been preserved in our Museum of Discovery because she has donated some ancestral tools discovered on her family property. She asked the Commission to postpone the decision on this matter until the nonconsensual designation process is finalized. Applicant Presentation Carolyn White, Land Use Counsel for Woodward, addressed the Commission. She said the Commission already had in their packet Woodward’s original complete presentation on the adaptive reuse plan being discussed as an alteration/demolition permit. She said that this process is one of three separate legal processes in the City that are all proceeding concurrently, and there is some overlap to them. Technically, the issue for this hearing is limited to the question of approval of the proposed alteration/demolition request, which they refer to as their adaptive reuse plan. There is also a nonconsensual designation of a district that includes not only the silos, but also the milk house and barn. The third process is before the Building Review Board (BRB) to consider a determination of whether or not the two silos are imminently dangerous and as such should be removed. While these are three separate and independent processes with different standards, criteria and procedures, they are overlapping quite a bit. Information and evidence relating to the facts in the other two processes has been brought up tonight and at the last meeting, and has been included in the packet. Since they are interrelated, she would like to address those in terms of how Woodward views them as it relates to the Commission’s decision tonight to approve or approve with conditions the proposed alteration/demolition proposal. Ms. White drew the Commission’s attention to page 169 of the packet where there is an illustration of the proposed plan. It was suggested in some of the public testimony that Woodward was planning to completely demolish or remove the silos, or that they ought to be relocated elsewhere to their full height. She wanted to clarify what Woodward is actually planning to do with the silos, pointing out that they would remain in their current location, though they would be considerably shorter than they are today. The material to be used is the existing concrete at the top of the silos which is in better condition than the rest of the concrete. That is the piece for which they are seeking approval at this time, as the plans for the milk house and barn have already been approved. Ms. White also noted for the record the additional information that had been provided by Woodward in response to requests made by the Commission. This information begins on page 105 of the packet. She pointed out the Plan of Protection on pages 109-111. She explained that Woodward has conferred with the Director of Natural Areas and there is an agreement in place to work together to develop appropriate interpretive signage, in the immediate vicinity of the silos, if the adaptive reuse plan is approved. City of Fort Collins Page 6 February 10, 2016 In response to the Commission’s request for information on other options that were considered, she said Woodward and the design team considered a number of potential uses for these structures, including small museums, a climbing wall, a lookout tower, and storage. All of those were on the table in the early days of the exploration around potential uses for the site. Once the original Historical Site Assessment was received, which revealed significant structural problems with these silos, those plans were determined not to be possible, in large part due to safety considerations for Woodward, its employees or any staff persons who might be hired to perform work on the silos in order to be able to reuse them in that fashion. That is why the current plan was developed and proposed. She also addressed the question about what needs to be done to restore the silos to an insurable condition. She said typically that isn’t the type of determination that insurance companies engage in, so they don’t provide any document stating what would need to be done, only that they can’t be insured in their current condition. This information is in the packet, and was also provided to the BRB. She said that all the information requested of Woodward has been provided. She said Woodward continues to believe that the best potential for adaptive reuse of these structures is the plan they have proposed, namely the use of them as a seating area in their current location in the context of the original setting with the other structures. Ms. White made it clear that Woodward strongly objects to the nonconsensual designation of its property and asks that the Commission not recommend that, although that is not the question before them tonight. She quoted from the minutes of the January 27 meeting, in which a Commission Member said “to recommend to City Council a nonconsensual designation is a big move, and one that should not be taken lightly”. Ms. White posed the question of why we shouldn’t we allow private property to be designated, over the objection of the property owner, when Fort Collins City Code, as well as federal and state designation code, allows that. She pointed out an important fundamental difference between designation as a landmark under the Fort Collins Code, and under state and federal law, is that if it is designated under state and federal law, the property owner retains the right to do as they see fit with their property and the structures therein. That is not true under Fort Collins Code as it is written today. If a property is designated without the consent of the owner, the property owner does not retain the right to do as they see fit with it. Without conceding that is an appropriate or legal provision to have in the Code, Woodward wanted to point out that is the main difference between the kind of state designation the site has today and the kind of nonconsensual designation that will be considered by the Commission. Ms. White said that Woodward is also concerned about what exactly would be designated, if there were a district designation. The proximity of these structures to the new buildings which are soon to be occupied is of grave concern to Woodward. It is currently unclear exactly what the district would be or what would be preserved if the district were designated, so it could include brand new structures, which is a significant concern to Woodward, and one of the reasons Woodward opposes the designation. Ms. White discussed the March 7 BRB hearing for consideration of whether or not these buildings are imminently dangerous. She mentioned that some members of the public had commented tonight on their interpretations of what the three experts had concluded with respect to the silos. What those experts said, what they meant, and whether it is imminently dangerous or not is exactly what will be debated at the BRB. She said two of the three experts did in fact conclude and explicitly state that the silos are imminently dangerous in their current condition, and the third concluded that it could fail at any time, which is the definition of imminently dangerous, but they didn’t say it was imminently dangerous. None of the experts said these structures are worth saving. That is a value judgment that is not in the purview of the engineering experts, and is not what the reports said. After originally purchasing this property, Woodward engaged experts to conduct a Historical Site Assessment, which is part of the record, and they noted significant structural concerns. That caused Woodward to bring in additional structural engineers for further evaluation, which over time resulted in the evolution of Woodward’s plans as to how they could adaptively reuse these structures. She said several people made troubling accusations about Woodward in terms of the representations they believe were made at the time Woodward bought the property and submitted plans to build their headquarters there. She said what Woodward said in the beginning, has said all along, and is continuing to say tonight is that they are committed to integrating the historic structures and historic characteristics into the campus, which is shown in their proposal. She said that no one ever promised to preserve the silos in their current condition or to make them available for a museum or any of the other things people had said tonight. City of Fort Collins Page 7 February 10, 2016 Steve Steismeyer, Director of Corporate Real Estate for Woodward, addressed the Commission on that point. He said Woodward didn’t do an assessment when they purchased the property, and thought everything was fine. When they had the Historic Site Assessment done, that was the first they heard about the dangerous situation with the silos. He had asked Wayne Timura to get a structural assessment, which they got from Martin and Martin, and the result was very negative. Then they got a second opinion from another structural engineer, JVA, who agreed with the first report. At that point, they realized their ideas weren’t doable, and that the cost would be exorbitant. He said he’s heard that Woodward wasn’t committed to this property, but this project costs several million dollars, and to suggest they aren’t committed to making this something special is unfair. They specifically went to a local architectural firm to design a package they could all be proud of, and would be a good adaptive reuse. To say that Woodward changed their mind since they purchased it is totally inaccurate. They assessed the situation as they walked through the process and the conceptual reviews, and that’s when this came up as a major issue. Ms. White concluded by explaining that even though Woodward believes, based on the expert reports, that the silos are imminently dangerous, they are not proposing to simply remove and demolish them and throw away the pieces. They are proposing to deconstruct them in a responsible way, to preserve as much as possible the usable and best structural material from them, and to reconstruct them into this proposed adaptive reuse plan. Woodward continues to believe this is the best way to preserve the heritage of the Coy farmstead. For the record, Ms. White said there were some proposed conditions of approval suggested by members of the public. One was that if this request is approved, the silos be allowed to be photographed, and Woodward agrees to that, although you can’t get too close since they are dangerous and fenced off. Second was that they be documented appropriately, in terms of gathering enough information to make an appropriate record of their use and history, and Woodward agrees to that. The third condition proposed had to do with relocating the silos. Woodward does not agree to that, as it is not part of their adaptive reuse plan, which instead proposes to reconstruct them as shown in their original setting. Ms. White asked for the Commission’s favorable consideration for approval of the adaptive reuse plan, or alteration/demolition permit, as presented. Staff Response Mr. Yatabe said he wanted to focus the LPC with regard to the simultaneous processes relating to the silos that have been mentioned. The alteration/demolition of a non-designated Fort Collins landmark is before them today. The other pending process before the BRB, and the nonconsensual designation process, are being considered in separate processes and are not part of tonight’s proceedings. Commission Questions and Discussion Vice Chair Ernest reviewed the Commission Actions on page 23 of the packet. He asked Staff whether postponing a decision to the next meeting on the 24th, which is within the 45 day period for the continuation, is an option that would be desirable or applicable. Mr. Yatabe said they still have that option based on 14-72(f)(5). The basis for postponing would be to seek additional information for consideration. He cautioned the LPC that if a decision is not made within 45 days, it will be deemed an approval without conditions. He noted that February 27th would be the 45th day, and since the next meeting would be on the 24th, they would still be within that period. Vice Chair Ernest also asked if the Commission were to approve with or without conditions, whether that would automatically place that action under Section 14-30, Interim Control, or whether they need to specify that. Mr. Yatabe explained that Section 14-30 is a portion of the code relating to the designation of a site, structure or district for Fort Collins landmark status. Once that procedure is initiated, as it was at the last LPC meeting, no building permit for construction, alteration or demolition can be issued. That limitation is in effect for up to 180 days from the time the designation is initiated, which happened at the last meeting, or until the designation has gone through the process. Therefore, even if an approval or approval with conditions occurs tonight, no building permit may be issued to allow for that demolition to occur until the designation process has played out. Vice Chair Ernest then asked for clarification on the meaning of “nonconsensual designation process” in the context of the last paragraph on page 23 of the packet. Mr. Yatabe said that would apply to the silos, but that he understood the City had already approved a modification to the barn, and he was uncertain as to the status of that. Mr. Leeson confirmed that although a minor amendment to the barn had been City of Fort Collins Page 8 February 10, 2016 approved, no permits have been issued. No permits were requested prior to the submittal of the nonconsensual designation, so the nonconsensual designation would apply to the district itself, which includes the milk house, the barn and the silos. Vice Chair Ernest thanked Ms. White for a thorough and professional presentation. He said the Commission was very aware of the difference between the local and state designation, and takes the issue of a nonconsensual designation or recommendation very seriously. Ms. Dunn asked if they approve the demo/alt with conditions, and then the designation goes through and it becomes a landmarked property and the silos are not torn down, if then the conditions fall by the wayside along with the demolition. Mr. Yatabe said that was correct, and that if the silos were designated, any approval or approval with conditions would become moot, since there is a separate procedure under Chapter 14 for demolition or alteration of designated Fort Collins landmarks. Mr. Hogestad asked Mr. Yatabe, if they ask for additional information, whether that information would have to be gathered within the remaining days of the 45 day period. Mr. Yatabe said that was correct, and the information would then need to be presented at that next meeting. Ms. Dunn said they had been told that conditions cannot be that they not tear down the silos, but asked if it would be possible to make a condition about moving the silos. Mr. Yatabe said the Code does not provide an exhaustive explanation of what conditions can be imposed. Section 14-72(f)(7) provides some examples of what those conditions may be, but need not be limited to. However, he advised that an approval with conditions generally has the inference that the conditions imposed would not frustrate the purpose of what is being approved. As to a condition of relocating the silos, that would be for the Commission to discuss in the context of whether that would frustrate what Woodward is requesting. Mr. Hogestad wondered whether instead of making a condition to move the silos, they could perhaps make a condition to do a feasibility study to see whether they can be moved. Vice Chair Ernest wondered if moving the silos would very adversely affect the integrity of the structures and site, and didn’t think that would be a strong option. Mr. Hogestad and Vice Chair Ernest asked about the HABS/HAER process. Ms. Gensmer explained it was a very in-depth study with the purpose being to produce materials beyond standard photos, to preserve everything including the film itself, as well as having the photographs printed on archivally stable paper with inks that will last in perpetuity. They tend to require measured drawings which also have to be produced in an archivally stable format. Exhaustive research must be conducted on the property, the structural characteristics and their significance, and on the historical significance of the larger context of the property. The State of Colorado also has a Level II study, which is a step below the HABS/HAER in its thoroughness, while also requiring some of the same archivally stable photos and drawings. These tools are not exclusively used in situations where the demolition of the structure is imminent, but it is an option used in certain cases as a mitigation measure. The goal is to gather all possible data so that even though the resource is no longer present, there is a very exhaustive record which isn’t stored on a floppy disk, for example, that would become obsolete. Mr. Hogestad said this was of interest to him because what they have so far are “point and click” photos that don’t address the larger site or the relationship between the silos and the barn and the overall site. He said there is a need for documentation at a larger level than what they have now. Ms. Gensmer agreed and said this documentation method was exhaustive and would accomplish that. Mr. Frick said he liked the interpretation of the silos the way Woodward designed it and thinks it is a fantastic idea. He wondered if along with that, perhaps there could be a steel structure that mimics the form of the silos, in lieu of actually preserving and stabilizing them. He added that HABS/HAER provides a lot of good documentation, but once the silos are gone, they’re gone. He said it seemed that over time, the historic character of this site has been whittled away. The farmhouse is gone and some other minimal structures are gone. He doesn’t know how many silos we still have in the urban growth area, but exhaustive efforts should be made to keep the silos and the context of the farm site intact. Mr. Hogestad said a member of the public had mentioned that one can see the silos from a distance, which confirms it is a farm site. That is a defining element of the entire farm site, so this should not be taken lightly. Ms. Wallace said her concern with HABS/HAER is that while it’s an effective tool, it’s a very extensive and long process. If there is an increased desire to have the property insured, which according to Woodward would require the demolition/alteration, she is concerned about the timeframe required to fulfill a HABS/HAER. City of Fort Collins Page 9 February 10, 2016 Mr. Hogestad asked if they could define a level of documentation that would shorten the time required and be a little less extensive. He reminded the Commission that the Counsel for Woodward had said they would be happy to do more research and photography of the site. Vice Chair Ernest asked whether there was a generic timeframe for HABS/HAER. Ms. Gensmer said it would depend on a lot on the photography, in terms of the availability of the compliant materials, and a developer who is able to produce them properly. She said the Level II documentation might move a little faster. Archival photos are still taken, and drawings are produced, but it is not quite as extensive and the requirements aren’t as restrictive in terms of the materials. Whether it would be significantly quicker than a HABS/HAER, she couldn’t say. Vice Chair Ernest said while it seemed that HABS/HAER would be a logical condition to impose, he too was concerned about the timeframe, not only in relation to the demolition of the silos, but to the potential district designation as well. He was unsure whether the HABS/HAER would be so far out of their timeline that it wouldn’t work. Also, since a HABS/HAER is often requested when the structure is going to be demolished, he wanted to be careful not to imply they were assuming the silos would be demolished. Mr. Hogestad also wondered if it was feasible that the field work for a study less extensive than HABS/HAER could be completed within the timeframe. He also inquired as to whether the field work and the compiling of all the information would have to done within the 45 day period. Mr. Yatabe said there is no specific timeframe identified for the conditions to be completed, as long as the decision to approve, or approve with conditions, is made within the 45 days. Mr. Yatabe said he had received a request from Woodward to address the relocation of the silos, if the Commission would like to entertain that. Vice Chair Ernest allowed it, as there were no objections. Chris Fawzy, General Counsel for Woodward, said they were not in a position to undertake the burden of carefully dismantling and relocating the silos, as has been suggested. He said that while this is not included in their adaptive reuse plan, and is not what they would like to see, if the Commission and the City want to undertake the burden of the associated costs, and assume the liability associated with dismantling the silos in a manner that would not be disruptive to their campus, or pose an undue danger to those performing the work, Woodward would not have an objection. He also pointed out for the record that he agreed with Mr. Yatabe’s statement that the conditions generally would not frustrate the purpose of the plan. He went on to point out that the Code says the conditions may include “any other mitigating solution agreed upon by the Commission, the Applicant, and any other applicable parties”. He said that any condition that goes beyond things that are mitigating, or that goes against the adaptive reuse plan they have proposed, would require Woodward’s consent. He again asked that they consider the adaptive reuse plan as proposed. Ms. Dunn pointed out for clarification that the mitigating conditions don’t have to be completed within the 45 days. Ms. Zink said it seemed unlikely that the silos could be rehabilitated or salvaged. She appreciated Woodward’s explanation of the timeline and thought processes that led to the decision to ask for the demolition permit. She also appreciated receiving the engineering reports. She said if there is only one inch of concrete remaining at base, and that inch of concrete has to have all the friable material removed before the repair can even begin, it may leave a 50 ft. structure sitting on half an inch of concrete. Even moving the equipment onto the site that would be necessary to install the scaffolding and the shoring that would be required to accomplish the rehabilitation of them, could potentially put the silos at risk and perhaps even the barn. Ms. Zink said it seems like a very difficult task to save the silos. She said as an architect, she has been involved in historic preservation for many years and has helped save many buildings, but this is almost an impossible task. Ms. Dunn asked if there was any interest in delaying to the next meeting. Ms. Gensmer asked what specific information they would need to make a decision, since according to the Code that would be the grounds for a delay. Ms. Dunn pointed out that she had asked for information about insurance, but there was little response on that. She said it sounded like if the silos were rehabbed, they would be insurable, but that that wasn’t stated. City of Fort Collins Page 10 February 10, 2016 Mr. Hogestad asked whether a delay would allow the Commission to explore what it would take to do a HABS/HAER or similar photographic study. Mr. Frick said he had done the documentation for the Public Service building on Prospect, and it took about two months to get all the survey work done. The photography would depend on the photographer’s schedule, but 2-3 months might be a reasonable timeframe. He said this may not require a full HABS/HAER. There has been a lot of historic documentation on it already, so that part wouldn’t need to be redone. They also have the engineer’s documentation on the silos, so it really wouldn’t take that much time – maybe 3-4 months. He said if they get the measurements and photographs done, that would pretty much take care of the documentation. Vice Chair Ernest said he didn’t think it would be wise to postpone given the impending 45 day time limit. He thought some of what they might be asking of Staff and of Woodward could take considerably longer. He asked if they were to approve with conditions, whether the 180 day interim control period referenced in Section 14-30 would then apply, and provide enough time to gather the information they need. Ms. Dunn again pointed out that the completion of the condition is not bound by any timeline. Mr. Yatabe confirmed that the conditions imposed on an approval do not have to take place within the 45 day period, only the decision on whether to approve or approve with conditions must be made within 45 day. If the Commission wants to get additional information on the details of a HABS/HAER and what it would entail prior to the next meeting in two weeks, that would be fine, but if a condition of actually completing a HABS/HAER were imposed, the HABS/HAER would not need to be completed within the 45 day period. Ms. Dunn said she didn’t think time was an issue, unless they had something they needed more information on. Mr. Yatabe again stated that if they are seeking clarity on what tool to use (HABS/HAER or otherwise), they could postpone to allow Staff and/or Woodward to pull that information together before the next meeting. Vice Chair Ernest reiterated Ms. Gensmer’s comment that if they are going to postpone, it would have to be for the purpose of gathering additional information. He said it sounded like they have identified some information they’d like to gather. He asked the Commission members to individually address whether they would like to postpone, and if so, what specific information would they like to request. Ms. Zink said she doesn’t require more information. Ms. Gensmer said she didn’t need additional information on HABS/HAER or photographic or other documentation. She also acknowledged that others may not be as familiar with those processes. She said at this point, she would be comfortable approving with conditions. Ms. Wallace said she couldn’t think of any additional information she would request. Mr. Frick asked whether they have any information on what it would cost to stabilize and preserve the silos in place. Ms. White said they do have that information in the packet. Mr. Steismeyer said the costs keep going up as they learn more about how poor the concrete is. The latest estimates have been upwards of $500-600 thousand due to the lack of structure, from a psi standpoint, at the base. Ms. Dunn said the only information she asked for, was something Woodward couldn’t provide. Mr. Hogestad said he was disappointed that they weren’t pursuing more photographic evidence and detailed drawings. Ms. Dunn said that a HABS/HAER can be part of the conditions. Mr. Hogestad said he wasn’t sure the HABS/HAER is really what they need. Ms. Gensmer said Mr. Frick raised a good point about archival work that has already done on this site. The point of a HABS/HAER or other Level 2 type document with that text included is to have it all compiled in one accessible place. If they feel the State Register nomination, or some of the other documentation that has been presented, holds a lot of that information that might be enough. Ms. Dunn asked if HABS/HAER would provide more context than what they already have. Ms. Gensmer said she was primarily focusing on the narrative part of it, but photographically the HABS/HAER would have larger overall context shots of the site and surroundings as well as details on the structures themselves. She wondered whether they want the full blown narrative report as well as having it archivally photographed and a structural drawing produced, or if they just want some portion of that information. Mr. Frick suggested asking for a maximum of a HABS/HAER Level 2, and then deciding later if they would be satisfied with something less than that. Ms. Gensmer said Level 2 documentation is a separate process, and that HABS/HAER is usually overseen by the Park Service on the Federal level. There are guidelines put forth by the Colorado State Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation that classify Level 2 as somewhere between the typical architectural inventory they commonly see and a full blown HABS/HAER. City of Fort Collins Page 11 February 10, 2016 Ms. Dunn asked if Staff could put something together about the different types of tools that could be used so that they could make a better decision about what to request. Ms. Bzdek said her understanding of Level 2 versus Level 1 is that Level 2 often allows substitution of existing measured drawings, if they can meet the standards for measured drawings, and that can expedite the process of the documentation. However, she doesn’t know that any measured drawings that would meet those standards exist, so if they wanted those, they’d be looking at a Level 1. If they are interested in a lower level of documentation that doesn’t require the same extent of measured drawings, they could look at HABS/HAER Levels 3 and 4, which are somewhat similar to the level of content that already exists on the silos, but not the same. Ms. Bzdek said Staff could provide an explanation of those different levels, if they decide to request that. Vice Chair Ernest said it didn’t sound like anyone was requesting a postponement, and that they might be looking at approval with conditions, one of which might be a HABS/HAER or state Level 1 or 2, whichever would be most appropriate. He recalled that Ms. White had said Woodward would agree to photographs and documentation, and while he wasn’t sure if that included a full scale HABS/HAER, it didn’t seem like that condition would frustrate the design of the Applicants. Ms. White offered that Woodward would be willing to conduct a HABS/HAER study of the silos before implementing the adaptive reuse plan, if that is a condition of approval, including to pay for it, but only if their adaptive reuse plan isn’t rendered moot by a subsequent nonconsensual designation of the property. Vice Chair Ernest thanked Ms. White for that clarification, and reminded everyone that for this particular process, they are discussing the alteration/demolition application for the silos. The application from the Save our Silos group is a separate process asking for designation of all the structures on the farmstead, which is not under discussion. Ms. Dunn mentioned that there hadn’t been any discussion of signage yet, other than a statement that Woodward and Natural Areas would have a discussion and some mutually agreed upon signage would be created. She suggested that a condition should be that the signage includes the silos, particularly the type of engineering that was involved, since that is quite significant. She said if they can clarify whether John Coy was involved in the construction of the first silo, that information would be nice to include, as well. Commission Deliberation Ms. Zink moved that Landmark Preservation Commission approve the demolition/alteration application for the silos at Coy Farm with the following conditions: (1) that there will be archival photography at a minimum and HABS/HAER Level 1 documentation as a maximum; and (2) that the history and photos of the silos be included in the interpretive signage. Ms. Dunn asked for an amendment to the motion so that rather than specifying a minimum and a maximum, they just ask for a HABS/HAER Level 1. Ms. Zink approved the amendment. Mr. Frick seconded. Vice Chair Ernest asked for confirmation that this motion would then place the application for alteration/demolition under interim control per Section 14-30. Mr. Yatabe said that was correct. Ms. Dunn said with the demolition/alteration review, they are not saying they want the silos to be demolished or altered, but just that the criteria has been met. She doesn’t want to see this happen, but will vote to approve this. Vice Chair Ernest appreciated that point, and reminded everyone that there is a separate process for local landmark designation of the barn, silos and milk house, but this motion is about approval of this alteration/demolition application for the silos. Mr. Frick asked for another amendment to the motion to add a condition that a structure that mimics the shape of the silos be built on top of the silo bases to show the height and shape of the silos. He clarified it would be a skeleton of the old silos. Ms. Zink said she believed that would fall under Section 7(c) that states the mitigating condition must be agreed upon by all of the parties. She said she was not for it, and she did not amend her motion. Mr. Yatabe asked to clarify that Woodward would pay for the HABS/HAER. Mr. Fawzy clarified that Woodward is willing to pay for the HABS/HAER as a condition, but only if tonight’s decision is not rendered moot by a subsequent determination to recommend for a landmark designation. In other words, they aren’t going to pay to do a study that doesn’t matter. Mr. Yatabe suggested that the motion be amended to make that clear. Ms. Dunn asked if the motion should say a “HABS/HAER paid for by Woodward”. City of Fort Collins Page 12 February 10, 2016 Ms. Wallace expressed a concern that if they approve with conditions and then down the road there is a nonconsensual designation, that may become problematic for the City. Mr. Yatabe said if Council does decide to designate the property, then the decision tonight would be moot because at that point they would have to go through the alteration/demolition process for a designated landmark district or site. Ms. Wallace said if they approve this tonight, and Woodward starts the HABS/HAER process tomorrow, would that initiation automatically nullify the potential designation since Woodward has stated they are only willing to agree to the condition if the property is not designated. She asked if that would mean the Commission is agreeing now not to designate as a nonconsensual later. Mr. Yatabe said Woodward would likely wait to satisfy this condition until after the designation is determined. Since there is no deadline on the HABS/HAER, other than completing it prior to proceeding with their adaptive reuse plan, he would assume Woodward would wait for the outcome of the other processes before starting it. Vice Chair Ernest said that what they are doing tonight is presupposing that the silos would be demolished, in which case the HABS/HAER would be of great value. However, if the landmark designation were to be recommended by the Commission and approved by City Council, that would leave the silos in place, so the HABS/HAER would not be as necessary. Mr. Yatabe responded saying that if Council approves designation, there is a separate process to apply to the LPC for an alteration or demolition of a designated landmark. Whether the silos would ultimately be preserved or not, would be up to the LPC to go through that process again, under the somewhat different regulations that are applied under that process. Ms. Zink said that when she made her motion, she wasn’t saying anything about who would pay for the HABS/HAER study. Even though Woodward said they would pay for it, there are certainly other entities that could pay for it, such as the City. Vice Chair Ernest said he wanted to make sure everyone understands that Ms. Zink’s motion does not address the issue of cost. Mr. Frick asked whether Ms. Zink would accept an amendment to the motion to state that Woodward would pay for the HABS/HAER. She indicated she would not. Ms. Dunn asked if that was something they could get a grant for through the state. Ms. Zink didn’t know. Ms. Dunn suggested that it’s up to Woodward to make sure the HABS/HAER happens, regardless of who pays for it. Mr. Hogestad pointed out Woodward’s concern that they would be held to that HABS/HAER condition in the event the silos would be designated and would not be destroyed, which seemed unnecessary. He suggested an amendment that states “in the event that the silos are to be demolished, Woodward would perform the HABS/HAER and pay for it”. Ms. Zink suggested that she withdraw her motion and start over. Mr. Frick did not agree to withdraw his second of the original motion. Upon request by Mr. Hogestad, Ms. Zink’s motion was read back with the accepted amendment as follows: Ms. Zink moved that Landmark Preservation Commission approve the demolition/alteration application for the silos at Coy Farm with the following conditions: (1) that there will be a HABS/HAER Level 1 conducted; and (2) that the history and photos of the silos be included in the interpretive signage. The other suggested amendments regarding whom would pay for the HABS/HAER, and under what condition Woodward would agree to pay for it, were noted as unresolved. Vice Chair Ernest wondered if it was necessary to get into the detail of what level of HABS/HAER would be conducted and who would pay for it. He read Section F(7)(c) again, and asked whether it might be appropriate to ask that there be a mitigation agreement among the parties if that question needs further elucidation as they move through the process. Ms. Dunn felt the important thing was to make sure someone was identified as the responsible party to ensure it is completed. Mr. Hogestad said that if Woodward pays for it, then they would be responsible for getting it done. Mr. Frick agreed to withdraw his second of Ms. Zink’s motion, and the motion was withdrawn. Ms. Dunn moved that Landmark Preservation Commission approve the demolition/alteration review application for the silos at the Coy Farm with the following conditions: (1) that a HABS/HAER Level 1 study be conducted under the direction of Woodward; and (2) that the history and photos of the silos be included in the interpretive signage. Mr. Frick seconded. Motion passed 7-0. Vice Chair Ernest called for a short break at 7:53 p.m. The Commission reconvened at 7:58 p.m. Chair Sladek and Mr. Lingle rejoined the Commission. City of Fort Collins Page 13 February 10, 2016 Chair Sladek revisited the requested change to the agenda, to move item #6, Landmark Apartments, up to this point in the agenda. He asked if the Commission and Staff were comfortable proceeding without City Planner Clark Mapes being present. Ms. Bzdek explained that Mr. Mapes had not planned to make any presentation, but had considered attending in case the Commission had questions for him. No one objected to proceeding without him. Mr. Hogestad also agreed he was comfortable proceeding, as any members of the public who may have planned to attend for this item would certainly be present by this point in the evening. Mr. Hogestad recused himself from the proceedings at this point due to a conflict of interest. Mr. Lingle asked if any of the other applicants had objections to the agenda change. Tricia Deihl, who was present for the Poudre Garage agenda items, inquired as to the reason for the change. Mr. Yatabe explained that he would be recusing himself as legal counsel due the fact that he resides on Wallenberg Drive. His colleague, Judy Schmidt, would be standing is as legal counsel on this item, and he did not want to impose on her time any later than was necessary. Ms. Deihl agreed to the request. 6. LANDMARK APARTMENTS - PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a Preliminary Review of a development proposal for six buildings, each two- or three-stories. The site is located adjacent to the Sheely Drive Historic District to the east. Directly west of the project, there are 4 mid-century single-family residences along Prospect Road that have not been evaluated for individual eligibility for Fort Collins Landmark designation. Mr. Yatabe recused himself from this item due to a conflict of interest. Ms. Gensmer disclosed that she had previously lived in the Landmark Apartments, but said that would not bias her one way or the other on this item. Staff Report Ms. Dorn presented the staff report, describing the proposed project. Ms. Dorn also noted that three emails had been received from members of the public commenting on the project since the agenda packet was published. Applicant Presentation Mr. Randell Johnson, Infusion Architects, gave the Applicant presentation. He said they are asking for preliminary feedback from the Commission at this time. He explained they had met with residents of the Sheely District where several issues were identified. They wish to work collaboratively with the neighbors and plan to remedy any issues prior to their next meeting with them. Public Input Ruth Hufbaurer, resident of the Sheely District, stated this can be a good collaborative development. She would like to see the mid-century style of the historic district strongly reflected in the design. She stated that the orientation of the buildings had been changed for the better, but she would also like to see lower buildings, such as single story with garden level. She also expressed concern about cars driving in at night with headlights facing their bedrooms. Per Hogestad identified himself as a Commission member and a resident of the Sheely District. He said they had been working with development team, talking about two and three story buildings. He said the District should be viewed as a whole, and that they are mostly single story. He said a two story would be appropriate with quite a bit of articulation and stepping down. He said this design looks like Landmark Apartments with a lower pitched roof and a few added gables. He recommended using the illustrations in Ray Kramer’s 2000 analysis of the District as a guideline for the design, particularly noting the elevations, rooflines and fenestration. He asked the Commission to look at those illustrations and understand it’s a complicated piece of architecture. He said the Applicant has agreed to work with them based on the Ray Kramer’s analysis. Veda Hogestad, resident of Sheely Drive, expressed concern over the height of the apartments, stating they need to be two stories or less, in order to be compatible with the District and comply with the buffer requirements in the Land Use Code. City of Fort Collins Page 14 February 10, 2016 Sarah Fonte, a new resident of the Sheely Drive neighborhood, expressed concern about the number of stories of the apartments and expected to see a more tiered approach. She would like more clarification on how many stories are being proposed. She also expressed concern about car headlights facing into their windows. She indicated a preference for flat roofs. Sean Gillies stated he appreciates the collaboration with the Applicant, and has been happy with the way the project has evolved. He would like to see the height of the new buildings fall between the single story homes of the Sheely District, and the existing Landmark Apartments. He pointed out that a low level of lighting is a defining characteristic of the Sheely District, and expressed concern about the overall lighting of the project, beyond just car headlights in the parking area. Staff Response None Commission Questions and Discussion Chair Sladek explained that the role of the Commission was to provide feedback, not to redesign the project for the Applicant. Mr. Frick said the site plan is similar to Ray Kramer’s. He stated it seemed like there is a bigger buffer between the Sheely property line and the parking than previous submittals, which offers a greater area for landscaping to block headlights. The orientation of the two and a half story buildings allows one to see through them. He asked the Applicant if they had received an easement to use the Landmark Apartment driveway. Dave Derbes, the owner’s representative for the project, explained that owner of this property also owns the Landmark Apartments. Mr. Frick stated his concerns related to the size and height of buildings. He asked if the Applicant had seen Ray Kramer’s conceptual design for the site. Mr. Derbes answered in the affirmative. He explained they had focused on minimizing the height of the buildings closest to the neighborhood. He said the neighbors had felt the buildings furthest north and in the southwest corner could accommodate more height and density. The buildings with the most sensitivity were on the north side of the wetlands, and those go from a two story height to the east up to two and a half stories. Regarding the potential for walk- outs, he mentioned there is a significant grade falling from the north to south on the site, which they intend to use to help minimize the mass of the buildings. They won’t know how effective that will be until they get through the topographical survey and grading plans. Mr. Frick said Ray Kramer’s design had more articulation in the façades of the buildings, and he encouraged more of that in this design to be more sensitive to neighborhood. Mr. Frick also pointed out that Ray Kramer’s design has smaller buildings, but more of them, which is more in keeping with neighborhood. Mr. Derbes said they were well aware of the language and are working towards compatibility with neighborhood. Chair Sladek asked whether there was also a down gradient from east to west. Mr. Derbes said the biggest grade change was from Prospect directly south, but there is a drop from the Sheely neighborhood down toward the wetlands, which he estimated at about six feet. Mr. Derbes said they would have that information the next time they come before the Commission. He stated they would also include models showing elevations of the new structures in relation to the existing Sheely residences to provide context. Chair Sladek said it would be helpful to have the Sheely neighborhood delineated on the maps and plans in the packet. Ms. Dorn said she did not include the district boundary map in the packet, but did include it in the staff presentation. Chair Sladek asked to have that included in the packet in the future. Chair Sladek reminded the Commission that the proposal is being reviewed under Section 3.4.7(f), New Construction. Mr. Lingle said he shares the concern expressed by some neighbors that it is difficult to discern exactly what is being proposed from the presentation in the packet. He pointed out that the narrative says 72-74 units, but the site plan says 78. There are also different building height designations, and he can’t tell which buildings are three stories and which are two and a half because the site plan that shows story heights doesn’t match up with the site plan that shows unit numbers. Mr. Derbes explained that two site plans had been included in the packet to show the evolution of the proposal, and pointed out the locations of the different building heights on the current site plan and stated that the current plan is for 72-74 units. City of Fort Collins Page 15 February 10, 2016 Mr. Lingle asked about the evolution of the building orientation, and whether they were trying to create view corridors between buildings. Mr. Johnson replied that the neighbors were in favor of pushing density up toward Prospect and dropping the height of the buildings most adjacent to the residences and just west of the wetlands area. The buildings are oriented so as to leave view corridors for the neighbors, and also provide some randomness to the placement of the buildings, as in Ray Kramer’s study. Most of the current version of the design came from working with neighbors, but they still have work to do. Mr. Lingle said the view depends on which lot you are viewing from, and the placement may be a response to the property owners who are the most involved and vocal. Chair Sladek said half of the buildings are oriented so they are looking at sides of buildings, and half aren’t. Mr. Frick said he noticed the placement of the dumpster areas, and suggested locating them on the side closer to the existing Landmark Apartments to better isolate the Sheely residents from noise and disturbance. Chair Sladek commented on the opportunity for landscaping along the eastern edge of the site to serve as a buffer between the houses and the apartments and parking lots. Mr. Lingle said in terms of headlight orientation, assuming at least a six foot grade break, the headlights should be going into the embankment. He would like to see site sections showing that next time, as well as landscaping and grading. Mr. Lingle echoed Mr. Frick’s comment that more buildings with smaller footprints would be preferable, if feasible. Chair Sladek also asked if that was feasible, but commented that the buildings didn’t seem that big currently. Mr. Lingle would like the Applicant to explore that scenario and report back the next time they come to the Commission. Chair Sladek asked if the other members would like to see step backs on the ends of the buildings explored as a mechanism for reducing mass. Several members expressed agreement; no one disagreed. Mr. Ernest also reiterated that seeing the grade separation and the heights of the roofs of the larger buildings in relation to the Sheely homes next time would be very useful. Chair Sladek asked the Applicant about exterior materials. Mr. Johnson stated they took direction from the guidelines provided by the City and the neighborhood, and would be looking at horizontal/vertical siding elements and stone or brick, similar to the materials used on the existing homes. The landscaping would be tied into it creating courtyard areas to articulate the face of the buildings and the ground in front of them. They are looking at Ray Kramer’s study in terms of the vocabulary. Chair Sladek emphasized the importance of materials for new construction as per Section 3.4.7(f)(3). Mr. Johnson said they were working closely with Mr. Hogestad to follow the guidelines and did not expect to be allowed to stray very far from them. Ms. Gensmer expressed her appreciation that this proposal was brought forward early for the Commission to provide comments. Chair Sladek thanked the Applicant [Timestamp: 8:51 p.m.] Ms. Gensmer disclosure about Landmark. 3. 320 MAPLE MIXED USE PROJECT (PDP150025)—REQUEST FOR RECOMMENDATION TO DECISION MAKER [Timestamp: 8:51 p.m.] PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This proposed development at the northeast corner of Maple and Meldrum involves construction of a 4-story, 41,674 square-foot multi-family attached building with 29 residential units. The property is located within the (D) Downtown Zone District and currently contains three connected commercial buildings and one residential building that would be demolished to make way for the site redevelopment. This proposal will be reviewed as a Type 1 hearing. APPLICANT: Craig Russell, Russell + Mills Studios, 131 S. College Avenue, Fort Collins Mr. Lingle recused himself due to a conflict of interest. Mr. Hogestad recused himself due to absence at the prior meeting when the project was discussed. City of Fort Collins Page 16 February 10, 2016 Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report, and described the proposal. Applicant Presentation Mr. Shuff, Architect with alm2s, gave the Applicant presentation. He said that since the December meeting they have done some refining to make the project more compatible, particularly on the west elevation. He proceeded to highlight the important points from the Applicant presentation that was included in the packet, focusing on recent changes. He said their original design had a 5’ setback along Maple, but their request for a variance on the 9’ utility easement setback was not approved, so they’ve increased that setback to 10’ now. He mentioned that at a previous LPC meeting, Ms. Zink had commented that the brick element on the west elevation felt too commercial. They have reduced the brick to be more congruent with the neighborhood. They have also simplified the “connector piece” using siding materials and a flat parapet roof, which is also more consistent with the massing of their project. He explained that they had toned down the glazing to be more sensitive to the west side. On the west elevation, he pointed out the sight-line from the one-story house to the north to the forth story lofts, showing how the setbacks of the upper floors make them less visible. Looking at the south elevation, Mr. Shuff spoke about how they had tightened up the language to be more consistent and create some hierarchy and movement. The materials get lighter in the upper floors. He pointed out the changes to the materials on the east side alley view. On the north elevation, they have broken up the longer facades, added stepping and setbacks, and broken up the massing with the color of materials. He reviewed what they had done to address compatibility with regard to massing and proportion, use of materials, and fenestration and detailing, as described in the packet. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion Ms. Dunn appreciated the changed of materials going toward the residences. Ms. Zink asked about the materials. Mr. Shuff explained that the gray element will probably be a cement fiber or concrete panel system; the gold color is siding; and the balcony frames will be some kind of panel system yet to be determined, depending on cost. Chair Sladek asked Staff whether they need to adopt the adjacencies and findings of fact. Ms. Bzdek explained that the adjacencies had been adopted at the December 9th Conceptual Review, and are specified in the staff report. Mr. Yatabe said that if they agree with Staff’s findings of fact, they can adopt those as part of the motion. Chair Sladek appreciated the work the Applicant had done and said the refinements they made were great. He said the changes to the little “orphaned” piece made it more cohesive. He also thought pushing the building back a few feet made the project more pedestrian friendly and attractive. Commission Deliberation Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to the Decision Maker approval of the 320 Maple Mixed-Use Project (PDP150025) finding it is in compliance with the standards contained in the Land Use Code 3.4.7 in regard to the project’s adjacency to several historic buildings, specifically 303, 305, 313, 315, and 329 North Meldrum, finding that the project is compatible and respectful to the character of the surrounding historic context for the following reasons: 1. The project design uses massing and scale that is compatible with adjacent historic buildings. 2. The project uses appropriate step-backs to mitigate height relative to the historic context. 3. The project relies on building materials that are compatible with adjacent historic properties. 4. The project uses window patterning and proportions that are typical of the adjacent historic context. City of Fort Collins Page 17 February 10, 2016 5. The pedestrian scale of the main floor of the proposed project is compatible with the historic context. Ms. Dunn seconded. Motion passed 7-0. [Timestamp: 9:12 p.m.] Mr. Lingle and Mr. Hogestad rejoined the Commission. 4. POUDRE GARAGE - DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This proposed development at the northeast corner of Maple and Meldrum involves construction of a 4-story, 41,674 square-foot multi-family attached building with 29 residential units. The property is located within the (D) Downtown Zone District and currently contains three connected commercial buildings and one residential building that would be demolished to make way for the site redevelopment. This proposal will be reviewed as a Type 1 hearing. APPLICANT: Craig Russell, Russell + Mills Studios, 131 S. College Avenue, Fort Collins Staff Report Ms. Bzdek explained that there are two separate processes for this proposal; first a design review focusing on its impact to the landmarked property, followed by a conceptual development review focusing on the impact to the area of adjacency. She presented the staff report, and described the proposal. Applicant Presentation Randy Shortridge of [au]workshop introduced the owner, Tricia Deihl, and Arlo Schuman, the project architect. Mr. Shortridge gave a presentation, noting that it was the same presentation given to the Commission at a previous work session, since not all of the members were present at that time. [Note: Mr. Shortridge showed samples of some materials, which were not passed to the Commission to examine, but can be seen in the video of the meeting.] Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion Mr. Frick stated his preference for version two of the proposal, adding that the Commission had given good direction at the work session. Mr. Lingle suggested articulating the infill panels of the garage doors with a pattern to replicate the historic version, or using a rollup horizontal door pattern like the 1962 version. He asked whether they were locked into vertical panels with a kick plate. Mr. Shortridge noted that the 1962 version is now historic. While he didn’t know exactly when the vertical muttons were put in, they seemed agreeable with character and retail/commercial function of the building. He went on to say they did explore a frosted pattern on the center of each of the tri-part windows to reflect what had originally been there, but were asked to remove them, as they limit visibility for retail. He explained that the kick plate at the bottom was a blend of the various versions the building has gone through, and is also reality of living in our climate, as storefronts that go all the way down to the street are problematic in inclement weather. He added that when the doors are in the up position the opaque panel provides sunshade. Mr. Lingle recommended retaining the narrow window on the front façade, using the side of the corner as the structural sheer, as a possible compromise with the structural engineer. He also noted that the coloration in version one may be too dark, while version two is too muted and not as distinctive. He wondered whether there was another option in between those, and asked what the other members thought. Chair Sladek said the darker color draws his eye to it and seems heavier and bigger, while the lighter color seems to recede. Mr. Lingle agreed the original color was too dark, but thought it could be muted. Mr. Hogestad said the lighter color was elegant, adding that while there wasn’t as much contrast with the color of the older building, the materials would be distinctive. Mr. Hogestad went on to say the building seems to be lacking in detail, and suggested the pilasters should have a little dimension if the tiles would allow them to make corners. Mr. Shortridge said the intent was to avoid competing in any way with original. Mr. Hogestad said the pilasters on the towers were too flat and needed a little more articulation and shadow lines to respond to the original building without mimicking. City of Fort Collins Page 18 February 10, 2016 Mr. Frick asked if Mr. Hogestad was talking about recessing the fluted portions like the cap. Mr. Hogestad said that would be more historically compatible. Mr. Shortridge explained that the material for the fluted panel would capture the light, adding texture and shadows. Mr. Hogestad reemphasized that the pilasters need to be a little more articulated to relate to the other building. Mr. Shortridge pointed out there are already some three-inch setbacks. Mr. Hogestad would like the pilasters to continue that. Mr. Frick commented on the transom windows across on the Oak street side in the original corner photo, and asked whether they could keep the transom line going across the new garage doors so they don’t look so tall. Following up on Mr. Lingle’s point about the color, Mr. Ernest agreed with Chair Sladek and Mr. Hogestad that the lighter shade was preferable. Chair Sladek pointed out that no plan of protection had been provided, which is required for a report of acceptability, per Article III, Section 14-46(b). He reviewed the list of issues raised by Staff on packet pages 200-201, noting several of the items that had been discussed or resolved. He said they had discussed, but not yet resolved, the issue of the new windows and corner treatment. He confirmed with the Applicant that the entrance ramp would not require a railing. The Applicant also confirmed that the chimney will be left in place, but obscured by the mechanical enclosure. The members expressed no concerns about the chimney. Ms. Zink likes that the original center entrance is utilized for the apartments with little change. Ms. Wallace appreciates the Applicant’s incorporation of the Commission’s previous suggestions and the echoing of art deco in the new design. Ms. Gensmer agreed with Ms. Wallace, and also agreed with Chair Sladek about the need for a plan of protection. Chair Sladek asked the Commission whether the proposed addition will negatively impact the landmarked building under Section 14-48. Mr. Lingle said since the freestanding addition leaves the original building intact, it doesn’t have a negative impact. The members indicated agreement that the project will not negatively impact the landmarked building. Chair Sladek asked the Commission if they saw any violation of the Secretary of Interior Standards that would be problematic for a final review. No concerns were expressed. Chair Sladek asked if the Commission was ready for a final review to provide a report of acceptability, with a caveat that they don’t have a plan of protection. He also asked whether they want to add a statement about the corner panels or the garage doors. Mr. Lingle said a case could be made that the current version of the doors have gained historic significance, adding that he doesn’t think the garage door issue violates the Standards. Chair Sladek pointed out this is a rehabilitation, not a restoration. Mr. Lingle asked if they could move to final review with the condition that a plan of protection the Commission finds acceptable be provided at a later date. Mr. Yatabe said that since the plan of protection needs to be agreed upon by the Commission as a whole, it would need to come back for another hearing anyway. Chair Sladek said he would be more comfortable seeing the plan of protection before a final review, noting that could happen as soon as two weeks. He said that the plan of protection should address not only the landmarked building, but also the adjacent eligible buildings. Ms. Zink agreed. Regarding the corner panels, Chair Sladek said he would prefer to see them opened up, depending on the engineering report. Mr. Frick asked about the transom windows on the Oak Street side. Chair Sladek said it would be up to the Applicant to explore that. Ms. Dunn recommended that the Applicant be placed early on the agenda the next time they come, since they were so late this time. [Timestamp: 10:25 p.m.] 5. POUDRE GARAGE – CONCEPTUAL REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a proposed addition to 148 Remington Street, a Fort Collins Landmark (Ordinance No. 134, 1997), constructed in 1937. The project is a four-story addition with a setback above the third story. The addition would add approximately 8,900 square feet to the 4,224 square-foot original structure, resulting in a total building area of 13,130 square feet. The mixed use project would include six residential units totally 5,600 square feet, office/restaurant/retail area totaling 4,700 square feet, a common interior area of 1,450 square feet, and an eight-space parking area of 1,400 square City of Fort Collins Page 19 February 10, 2016 feet. Several individually eligible and landmarked properties are adjacent to the project. APPLICANT: Jason Kersley, [au]workshop, llc Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report. She explained that the role of the LPC as outlined in Section 3.4.7 is to make a recommendation to the decision maker, which in this case will be a hearing officer. She noted that this process considers not only the existing structures on the site, but also the surrounding area of adjacency, which is addressed in the staff report. Applicant Presentation Mr. Shortridge gave the Applicant presentation. He discussed the area of adjacency, zoning for the site, setback relationships and building frontages with the street. He also talked about the character of the surrounding buildings and addressed mass and scale transitions. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion Chair Sladek asked whether the Commission needs to adopt the adjacencies at this point. Mr. Yatabe pointed out that no formal application has been submitted, so while the Commission can comment on the proposed adjacencies, it would be better to wait until the recommendation review to adopt them with a motion. Ms. Dunn asked how much space was between the new building and Zoric Cleaners. Mr. Shortridge said there is a five foot walkway between them. He further explained that there is a ramp up to Zoric’s entrance from the west, and they will provide stairs on the back side of that ramp. Mr. Ernest said he was willing to accept the area of adjacency as proposed by Staff. Chair Sladek asked the other members if they were comfortable with that, and no concerns were expressed. Chair Sladek asked for the Commission’s thoughts on the potential impact and compatibility of the project in terms of Section 3.4.7. Ms. Dunn commented that the design was in character with existing historic structures, as per Subsection (f)(2). Chair Sladek pointed out that they had discussed that in relation to the Poudre Garage building, but not in relation to the area of adjacency. Mr. Frick said the Applicant is the first to put this kind of structure behind a historic building and said it was very well done and highlights the historic structure, and is compatible with the Zoric building in terms of color, size and brick details. He said this project sets a good design standard and could be a prototype for future additions to other historic buildings in the area. Ms. Dunn pointed out that there were two time periods of development in this area. Remington was originally residential, as shown with the St. Peter’s Fly Shop. Then the 100 block was substantially torn up and replaced with what are now the predominant buildings. She said they seem to have similar size, mass and style. Chair Sladek said the time periods are from the 30’s to 50’s. Ms. Dunn said that in terms of character, they are looking for brick rather than stone, adding that the Applicant had hit that time period. Chair Sladek asked whether anyone had any concerns as to whether the design complies with 3.4.7(a). He said he didn’t see any, and no one else voiced any concerns. Mr. Hogestad added that the scale and massing is appropriate with the surrounding buildings they have identified, and he has no problem with it. Mr. Lingle said they would have to articulate what the negative impact would be, and he doesn’t see any. Chair Sladek said the greatest potential impacts would be to the properties directly adjacent to the project, Zoric Cleaners and the auto dealer, but the stepped nature of the addition mitigates any concerns. No concerns were raised by other members. Chair Sladek thanked the Applicant for their time. [Timestamp: 10:50 p.m.] 7. LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2016 ELECTION OF OFFICERS The purpose of this item is to elect a chairperson and vice-chairperson for the 2016 term, as provided for in Sec. 2-279 of the Municipal Code. Nominations City of Fort Collins Page 20 February 10, 2016 Chair Sladek asked who might be interested in serving as Chair or Vice Chair. Mr. Frick nominated Ron and Doug. Mr. Hogestad asked if Ms. Dunn would be interested, but she said she would not. Mr. Ernest pointed out it might be good to have someone else as Vice Chair, since he will be term limited next year. There were no other nominations. Chair Sladek said he would be happy to stay on, if asked, but would not be offended if the Commission was ready for a change. Mr. Ernest said he would be willing to continue, and thinks Chair Sladek is doing great job. Commission Deliberation Mr. Frick moved that Mr. Sladek be Chair and Mr. Ernest be Vice Chair of the Landmark Preservation Commission. Mr. Lingle seconded. Motion passed 9-0. • OTHER BUSINESS None • ADJOURNMENT Chair Sladek adjourned the meeting at 10:55 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by Gretchen Schiager.