Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 03/09/2016City of Fort Collins Page 1 March 9, 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 March 9, 2016 Minutes • CALL TO ORDER Chair Sladek called the meeting to order at 5:37 p.m. • ROLL CALL PRESENT: Dunn, Zink, Hogestad, Wallace, Gensmer, Lingle, Ernest, Frick, Sladek ABSENT: None STAFF: McWilliams, Bzdek, Dorn, Yatabe, Schiager, Leeson • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. • DISCUSSION AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 24, 2016 REGULAR MEETING. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the February 24, 2016 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. Mr. Lingle pointed out that he had been listed as both present and absent at the meeting, but was actually absent. Landmark Preservation Commission Approved by Commission at their April 13, 2016 meeting. City of Fort Collins Page 2 March 9, 2016 Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the minutes of the regular meeting of February 24, 2016 with the correction noted. Ms. Gensmer seconded. Motion passed 9-0. 2. THE COY FARMSTEAD, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER, 1041 WOODWARD WAY – FORT COLLINS LANDMARK DESIGNATION (NONCONSENSUAL) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This item is to consider a landmark designation application brought forward by a group of Fort Collins residents for the Coy Farmstead. APPLICANT: Gina C. Janett, et al 730 West Oak Street Fort Collins, CO 80521 Chair Sladek and Mr. Lingle recused themselves due to conflicts. Vice Chair Ernest assumed the role of Chair for this item. Ms. Gensmer disclosed that she had previously worked on the site for another owner, but said that does not bias her in any way. Ms. Dunn and Mr. Ernest disclosed associations with some of the applicants, but said that does not influence their opinion on this matter. Staff Report Ms. McWilliams presented the staff report and reviewed the proposed landmark designation, including the fact it would be a nonconsensual designation. She stated the LPC has requested additional information for this hearing, including a summary of the benefits to the community associated with the local landmark designation and a recommendation from staff on appropriate boundaries for the designation. Mr. Yatabe noted that the Commission is not tasked with determining the boundary of the district at this point in the process. If, at the second hearing, the Commission decides to send the recommendation to Council, the boundary definition would be included in the LPC’s recommendation Council. Presentation by Appellants and Parties-in-Interest in Support of the Designation Bill Whitley briefly introduced the appeal. Carol Tunner discussed her history with historical preservation and the Coy Farmstead in particular. Additionally, she discussed the importance of the Farmstead to the community and detailed the history of the property. She stated nonconsensual designation of this property is appropriate. Lisa Ashbach discussed the history of the process leading to this point, citing instances wherein Woodward has made commitments to preserve the silos. She discussed the cost estimates for stabilizing the silos and argued Woodward’s plan to use the top portion of the silos does not meet the definition of adaptive reuse. She presented a video demonstrating the stability of concrete silos. Wendy Campbell discussed her history in historical interpretation and briefly discussed the parallels of the Coy Farmstead to the Devil’s Backbone site. She discussed the iconic value of silos in general and noted the importance of the silos in representing the village of structures necessary for a self- sufficient farm. [Note: The slide presentation, video and a detailed script have been entered into the record.] Presentation by Parties-in-Interest in Opposition to the Designation Carolyn White, Land Use Counsel for Woodward, stated that strong legal, preservation-based, practical and public policy reasons exist why this body should terminate the proceedings at this point and not recommend to Council that they designate the property over the objection of the property owner. Steve Steismeyer, Director of Corporate Real Estate for Woodward, discussed the physical challenges of the property and discussed the importance of the partnership between the City and Woodward in making this campus successful and world-class. He went on to detail Woodward’s plan for a creative plan to retain the historic significance of the silos in light of the structural concerns regarding the silos. He noted that plan has been approved, with conditions, by the LPC. City of Fort Collins Page 3 March 9, 2016 Ms. White stated the practical effect of nonconsensual designation under the Fort Collins Code is much more restrictive and burdensome to the property owner compared to federal or state law. She stated Woodward is of the opinion that, should this designation occur, and should Woodward subsequently be required to spend nearly $1 million on the full stabilization and restoration of the silos, that expenditure would in effect be an unlawful taking. She detailed Woodward’s adaptive reuse plan, stating it is the best way to present these structures to future generations, and also noted the LPC has approved that plan. Clay Benson, Mortensen Construction, discussed his company’s estimates for stabilizing and repairing the silos. He stated work would need to be completed from the interior of the silos and noted extensive safety consideration would need to be taken first. He provided an estimate of $750,000-$1,000,000 for shoring, stabilization, and OSHA compliance. Chris Fawzy, Corporate Vice-President and General Counsel for Woodward, discussed the investments made by Woodward on its campus and stated the company is committed to its functional adaptive reuse plan. He stated nonconsensual designation would be a very drastic measure, noting the City has only approved one such designation in its history. He stated Woodward will not be willing to proceed with what it has already submitted with its adaptive reuse plan for the other structures in the event this nonconsensual designation is approved. Additionally, he stated Woodward will use all legal remedies available to ensure any such approval would not be upheld. Ms. White requested the LPC terminate the proceedings at this point. Public Input Roger Hoover stated Woodward entered into this process with a commitment to preserve the barn and silos and were given significant public resources to do that, among other things. He argued Woodward did not perform its due diligence with respect to the historic structures. He urged the Commission to be courageous in its preservation of the property. Myrne Watrous argued Woodward’s preservation estimates are overstated and requested the Commission pursue the designation. Heather Wolhart, great-great granddaughter of John Coy, commended Woodward’s plan discussing the progressive nature of her relatives. She detailed the history of the barn structure, stating the importance of the property has more to do with people than silos. Ms. Wolhart went on to argue the property no longer contains a farmstead, but a different use with a barn that deserves to be reused and moved into something new that gives it purposeful, forward value. Additionally, she noted the City was given 30 acres of property from Woodward. Wayne Sundberg discussed his belief that the citizens of Fort Collins own the heritage of the property. He discussed an interview he had with a daughter of John Coy and stated the preservation of the silos is beneficial to the citizens. Neal Spencer supported the nonconsensual designation and the comments of the other speakers. Randy Pope agreed with Ms. Wolhart that this issue is about people; however, he stated the people have spoken and wish to preserve this small piece of the City’s history. He discussed Woodward’s history in preserving trees and landscape at its Drake and Lemay campus and opposed Woodward’s statements which he characterized as threats. Dee Amick stated this designation does not have to be nonconsensual, stating Woodward could embrace the opportunity to make the farmstead part of its world headquarters. She suggested more creative solutions could be incorporated into the plan, such as interpretive connections to Woodward’s founder. Harry Rose stated 200 signatures were collected in front of the library in four hours last Saturday in support of the nonconsensual designation, demonstrating widespread support for preserving the silos. Cheryl Glanz wondered what Woodward’s employees thought about this issue, given it is an employee-owned company. Additionally, she noted Woodward has hired a number of farmers in its history. She would like to see more options explored. City of Fort Collins Page 4 March 9, 2016 Carole Hossan supported a non-confrontational solution and stated Woodward owned the property for a number of years without doing anything to protect the structures. She stated it would not be good for the City’s reputation to set a precedent for providing incentives to a large corporation which then backed off from its commitments. Appellant Rebuttal Ms. Ashbach stated the 31 acres deeded back to the City by Woodward were unusable as they were in the floodplain. Additionally, she stated Woodward is choosing to spend $3 million on the barn restoration and that choice could easily be altered. Ms. Ashbach argued the preservation code has existed in Fort Collins for over 50 years in some form or another; therefore, this does not constitute a taking of property. Ms. Ashbach also argued all of the dollars needed to address the site challenges were covered by the $23.6 million in incentives, with the exception of the funds for farmstead restoration. Ms. Tunner argued the engineers’ reports did not state the silos are imminently dangerous. She also pointed out that the “taking issue” was settled by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1878. She went on to cite an estimate by an historic preservation contractor for $200,000 to stabilize the structures, and cited historic standards which indicate properties shall be used for a use as close to the original as possible. Additionally, Ms. Tunner discussed the stabilization process and costs for a silo in Westminster, the construction for which was completed by JVA, Woodward’s hired engineer for this project. Finally, Ms. Tunner reminded the Commission this designation would cover the entire property, including the barn. Mr. Whitley argued the silos can be repaired for a reasonable cost, partially underwritten by the State Historical Fund, and can then be insured. He expressed concern Woodward could demolish the barn if allowed to demolish the silos. Opposition Rebuttal Ms. White clarified the incentive package granted to Woodward consists of funds from its own use and property taxes. Additionally, she stated at the time of purchase, the only designation on the property was the State designation, which does not require approval of any body nor prohibit them from moving forward with their plans. Ms. White stated the engineering firm, JVA, which worked on the Westminster silos, has told Woodward the silos are in no way comparable in terms of their condition and the potential restoration costs. Ms. White acknowledged the silos may be insurable following the restoration, but stated it is unclear whether the structures will be insurable during restoration given safety concerns brought up by Mortensen. Ms. White clarified Woodward is a traditionally owned, corporate company and is not fully employee owned as was mentioned. Finally, Ms. White noted Woodward has engaged in an extensive analysis with several local consultants regarding the property and have developed the plan with which they would like to move forward. Staff Response Ms. McWilliams addressed a comment from the public stating that there had only been one other nonconsensual designation in the history of Fort Collins. She clarified there have been several nonconsensual historic designations approved by Council, including the modifications to the boundaries of Old Town, the Sheeley District and the Whitcomb District. Commission Questions Ms. Dunn noted the Code does not specifically address the condition of the property, nor financial concerns when directing the Commission to consider designation. She asked Mr. Whitley how many people are now making this nomination. Mr. Whitley replied there are 107 people. Ms. Dunn asked about the recently passed Council Ordinance No. 011, 2016, which may allow the Commission two options for this meeting. Mr. Yatabe clarified there may now be over 100 people on the petition; however, there were 70 that signed the original petition to initiate these proceedings. Additionally, he replied Council did pass an Ordinance change which would have allowed the Commission to forward a recommendation for designation on to Council following this first meeting; however, the date of this petition was prior to the effective date of the ordinance. Commission Discussion Mr. Ernest noted the Commission has all of the information in the packet, as well as new information presented, to consider. City of Fort Collins Page 5 March 9, 2016 Mr. Yatabe clarified staff has prepared a draft resolution in the event the Commission opts to move the process forward to a second hearing. Mr. Ernest acknowledged the Commission members received the draft resolution, noting the resolution is based off the Commission’s discussion at the previous meeting. Mr. Ernest said the Commission understands this is a grave matter. Mr. Yatabe pointed out the resolution is an incomplete draft and needs wordsmithing. Ms. Dunn suggested going through the resolution section by section. Mr. Ernest discussed the first sections of the resolution which address the Commission’s actions up to this point and noted the Commission previously agreed the farmstead meets the standards for events, persons and groups, and design and construction. However, it did not find that it had information potential in regard to pre-history or history. Commission members agreed standards A, B and C are met, but not D. Additionally, Ms. Gensmer stated that while Native American involvements occurred on the property, what is present on the ground’s surface does not suggest a high potential at this exact location. All Commission members agreed regarding the standards in 14-5(1) and (2), and agreed to strike D. Mr. Yatabe noted this discussion does not indicate votes for any specific language. Mr. Ernest discussed the seven characteristics of exterior integrity which include location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. He noted the Commission had previously agreed that location, design, materials, workmanship and association were all met by the property; however, there was some hesitancy on setting and feeling for some members. Additionally, he noted there is no requirement for the property to meet all seven characteristics. Ms. Dunn said she had initially been uncertain about setting, but now believes this fits the definition of setting. Mr. Hogestad said he agrees it meets setting. Mr. Ernest asked about feeling, read the definition and discussed an example to which he compared the Coy farmstead, stating the feeling still exists given the open space and river to the south, despite the new large buildings to the north. Ms. Wallace agreed the presence of the physical features, when taken together, convey the historic character of the Coy Hoffman farmstead. Mr. Ernest asked if everyone agrees that all seven characteristics apply. Mr. Hogestad and Ms. Dunn agreed. All members agreed about that the site meets all seven standards for exterior integrity, and agreed to strike the italicized notations under C and F. Mr. Ernest asked about the context, in Section iii. Mr. Hogestad suggested deleting that section as boundaries do not need to be decided at this point. Mr. Yatabe stated his understanding is that context is a different concept than boundaries. Ms. McWilliams clarified the Fort Collins Code requires that a property be evaluated for its significance and integrity, and that the context of the property be considered in order to determine eligibility. Mr. Ernest read the definition of context from the Code, noting Section iii of the ordinance simply defines the context of the area, not its boundaries. Mr. Hogestad agreed on the terms of the larger context, with the understanding that the district boundaries would be defined later. Mr. Yatabe clarified that defining the boundaries can be done at the second hearing. Mr. Ernest said he was comfortable with postponing discussion of the boundaries at this point. Ms. Dunn proposed the reasons for Section 4 as follows: “The preservation of these iconic structures from Fort Collins’ early history are a public necessity and such preservation is in the interest of the City of Fort Collins Page 6 March 9, 2016 prosperity, civic pride and general welfare of the people of Fort Collins as shown by the groundswell of community support for this proposed designation.” There was general agreement with this statement among the Members. Mr. Frick applauded Woodward on its efforts to preserve the barn and get a sense of the silos in their current design. He agreed with Ms. Amick’s statements regarding designating the property in order to attain funds from state and federal historical agencies. He asked what the State Historical Society would likely contribute. Ms. McWilliams replied that the City, if acting as a co-applicant, can apply along with the landowner for up to 75% of the cost of an emergency stabilization. Ms. Zink noted that, as this is privately owned, the State would contribute only up to 50%. Ms. McWilliams replied the City has put up 25% and the owner 25% in the past. Mr. Frick asked about the cap on the State grants. Ms. McWilliams replied State Historical Fund grants are typically capped at $200,000 per grant; however, one can apply for multiple grants and there are two grant rounds per year. Mr. Frick discussed the potential costs of restoration stating, regardless of the estimate, the amount is minimal in comparison to the overall project. He agreed with Ms. Wolhart that the silos were tools; however, he stated they are iconic. He asked how many silos and barns are currently in the UGA (Urban Growth Area). Ms. McWilliams replied she does not have that information; however, she discussed a 1995 study which identified only a few barns associated with silos, some of which have since been demolished. Ms. Zink noted Woodward did not instigate the neglect of the silos. The neglect started in the 50s, or really the day after they were constructed. Mr. Ernest discussed the mass of information and noted the proposed landmark district does include not only the silos, but the milk house and barn as well. Additionally, he noted the Commission members have agreed the site meets all seven aspects of integrity; however, if the silos were to be demolished or adaptively reused as proposed by Woodward, he suggested the silos no longer meet any of those seven aspects. Mr. Ernest went on to state he is leaning toward voting for the nonconsensual designation because the historic information makes it clear the entire property does rise to the level of significance as outlined in Section 14-5 of the Code. He argued the silos would have to remain intact for that integrity to remain intact. Ms. Zink expressed concern that the removal of the silos would diminish the integrity of the entire assembly of the district, which is why it should be designated as a district. Commission Deliberation Ms. Dunn moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission adopt the resolution as stated with the specified amendments and proceed with a second public hearing to further consider the designation of the Coy Farmstead. Mr. Frick seconded. Motion passed 7-0. Vice Chair Ernest called for a short break. [Timestamp: 8:25 p.m.] Chair Sladek and Mr. Lingle rejoined the Commission. 3. 321 OLD FIREHOUSE ALLEY – FINAL DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a proposed tenant improvement to a vacant space at 321 Old Firehouse Alley, located in the rear portion of Illegal Pete’s building at 320 Walnut. The project includes interior and exterior alterations that will result in a tasting room occupying 3,820 square feet of single-level space accessed by entry from Old Firehouse Alley, and an additional 1,780 square feet of exterior courtyard space. APPLICANT: Barry VanEveren, Prost Brewing Co. Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report and described the proposed project. She detailed the proposed changes to the building exterior. Applicant Presentation City of Fort Collins Page 7 March 9, 2016 Mr. VanEveren briefly discussed his plan to enhance the look of the building and maintain its architectural integrity. He said he believed they had provided everything the Commission had requested at the last meeting and would be happy to answer any questions. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion Mr. Frick asked about the east elevation, far left door, and asked about the possibility of using a glass door or a solid accordion style door. Mr. VanEveren replied that the area is mostly storage and the door will be used for access to that storage. He stated he is willing to utilize whatever material desired. Ms. Zink stated the rollup type door fits better visually and proportionally in that location. Mr. VanEveren replied glass could be used at the discretion of the Commission. The Commission members had a brief discussion regarding the door materials. Mr. Frick asked about having more lights in the glass doors. Mr. VanEveren replied he is working with the DDA to aid in funding brick clean-up; however, they cannot help pay for signs but can help fund awnings. He stated the hanging metal brackets are quite prevalent downtown. Mr. Hogestad asked if the awnings have valances on the side. Mr. VanEveren replied in the affirmative and stated the address will likely be printed on the vertical section. He stated the frame bolts into the building’s mortar. Mr. Frick asked about the number of window panes in the door. Mr. VanEveren replied any amount of vertical cuts can be added. Mr. Lingle noted the planned doors mimic those already approved. Mr. Lingle said if they weren’t planning to cut the window openings into door openings, the smaller pane feature would be preferable; however, as these are essentially new openings, he suggested they should match the newer storefront. Mr. Frick agreed. Chair Sladek asked if the material should be wood. Mr. Hogestad replied the use of wood isn’t as important as the use of low maintenance materials. Chair Sladek questioned the use of awnings on the rear of the building rather than solely as a storefront treatment, though he acknowledged they are removable features. Mr. Hogestad asked if that awning is for the sign. Mr. VanEveren replied the awnings over the windows are not necessary; however, the center awning marks the entrance. Mr. Frick asked if the awnings have an angled cut or come out straight. Mr. VanEveren replied he prefers the slight angle; however, the bracketing would be the same and he is willing to change them to be straight. Mr. Frick stated straight awnings are more typical of the building style. Mr. VanEvern agreed with making that change. Mr. Lingle suggested just placing an awning over the center entrance rather than the windows. Mr. VanEveren agreed to make that change. Chair Sladek suggested possibly making the awning with more of the metal frame exposed. Mr. VanEveren agreed. Chair Sladek asked how people will know the alley entrance is the main entrance. Mr. VanEveren replied most of the foot traffic comes from Linden and once the alley is improved, it will be a better situation. Chair Sladek asked Commission members if anyone has any issues with the project in terms of standards. Mr. Ernest replied the Secretary of the Interior standards 5 and 9 seem most applicable. Chair Sladek added standard 2 and stated this project fits well from an adaptive reuse perspective and will help activate the alley. Chair Sladek noted that the Commission had requested modifications regarding the doors and awnings. City of Fort Collins Page 8 March 9, 2016 Mr. Ernest suggested specifying findings of fact, prior to making the motion. Ms. Dunn proposed a finding that the effect of the proposed work will perpetuate the use of the landmarked building. Chair Sladek added a finding that it will not negatively impact its landmark status. Commission Deliberation Ms. Dunn moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the plans and specifications for the rear alterations to 321 Old Firehouse Alley, with changes to the doors and awnings as described, finding that the proposed work (a) will not erode the authenticity or destroy any distinctive exterior feature or characteristics of the site; and (b) is compatible with the distinctive characteristics of the landmark and with the spirit and purpose of Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code, finding that the effect of the proposed work will perpetuate the use of the landmarked building, and will not negatively impact its landmark status. Ms. Gensmer seconded. Mr. Hogestad said he appreciated the changes the Applicant had made. Motion passed 9-0. [Timestamp: 8:59 p.m.] 4. RIVER DISTRICT BLOCK 8 MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT (OLD ELK DISTILLERY) – CONCEPTUAL REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL (PDP140016) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The River District Block 8 Mixed-Use Development (formerly known as Old Elk Distillery for the Preliminary Design Review) is located on 1.2 acres at 360 Linden Street on the southwest corner of Linden Street and Willow Street. The property is located in the core of the River Downtown Redevelopment (R-D-R) Zone District; the portion of the site facing Linden is within the Old Town National Register Historic District. The proposed mixed use development includes a distillery production facility (33,448 square feet) along Willow Street that is 51 foot tall at the main roof with a 68 foot tall tower. The mixed use building (9,900 square feet) at the Linden and Willow intersection includes a retail space (2,180 square feet), pub (1,800 square feet), and shared restrooms (600 square feet) at level 1 with office space (4,460 square feet) at level 2 and a total building height of 37 feet tall. APPLICANT: Brandon Grebe, Blue Ocean Enterprises, Inc. Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report and noted the LPC will need to finalize the area of adjacency this evening in order to move forward. Applicant Presentation Brandon Grebe, Blue Ocean Enterprises, discussed the overall project and changes which have been made since the project was previously proposed. Eduardo Illanes, Oz Architecture, discussed the importance of this project as a catalyst to bridge the Old Town District with the River District. He went on to detail the architecture and function of the proposed project and discussed access to the courtyard. Additionally, Mr. Illanes outlined the plans for the proposed facades and layout of the interior equipment. He also discussed the physical differences between the two buildings, including brick color, and detailed the importance of ‘blurring’ the space from the interior to the exterior. Public Input Roger Hoover complimented the appearance of the buildings; however, he expressed concern regarding the tower, stating the architects have been misdirected by the building massing and step back requirements of the Code. He compared the tower situation to false fronts of big box stores and stated this building would be much more fitting if the tower were one continuous structure all the way to the top. He opposed applying the building massing requirements to the project. Commission Deliberation on Adjacencies City of Fort Collins Page 9 March 9, 2016 Chair Sladek noted that the list of adjacencies is the one item requiring a vote. He added one item to the list: the track section of the Greeley, Salt Lake and Pacific railroad which remains along the north edge of Willow Street. Ms. Zink pointed out a photo of the section on page 227 of the packet. Mr. Ernest commented on the history of the Greeley, Salt Lake and Pacific railroad and supported adding it to the list of adjacencies. Mr. Hogestad asked if the old Giddings Machine Shop, now Bas Bleu Theater, should be added to the list. Chair Sladek agreed that property is within eyesight of the property. Ms. Bzdek stated staff is unsure if the Theater building is eligible; however, it could be added as an adjacency with the caveat that it is found to be eligible. Mr. Frick moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission adopt as the area of adjacency for the River District Block 8 Mixed-Use Development the list provided in the staff report, with the additions of the tracks of the Greeley, Salt Lake and Pacific Railroads at the corner of Willow and the Giddings Building if it is not found to be ineligible. Mr. Hogestad seconded. Motion passed 9-0. Commission Questions and Discussion Mr. Hogestad commended the window design but also questioned the necessity of the top portion of the tower. He questioned the inspiration for the arch and whether or not there is too much metal used on the south elevation. Mr. Illanes replied the specific height of the stills is not yet known; however, the stills are 60 feet tall and the tower is now 68 feet tall. In terms of the use of metal, that was a cost savings measure; however, it could certainly be articulated differently. He noted this part of the building is all in the River District, outside the Downtown District. Mr. Illanes also discussed the use of brick on the building to tie in with the freight depot building across the alleyway. Mr. Hogestad expressed concern in using so much metal. Mr. Illanes replied they will ensure a direct relationship to the depot as well as meet the River District guidelines in terms of articulation. Mr. Hogestad asked about the fencing material. Mr. Illanes replied it will be steel post fencing. Mr. Hogestad asked if the yard will be fenced. Mr. Illanes replied in the negative stating the only fencing will be along Willow. Mr. Hogestad stated the yard may end up being fenced due to security issues and encouraged the use of rich materials in acknowledgment of the district. Ms. Gensmer asked if a subsurface component exists in the project. Mr. Illanes replied in the negative. Ms. Gensmer stated she would like to see a consideration of archeological monitoring in the area should a subsurface component be added. Chair Sladek noted the site will still need to be prepared for construction and noted there is a possibility of the discovery of remnants of fort buildings. He encouraged the applicants to have an archeologist on the team when preparing for construction. Mr. Hogestad and Ms. Gensmer agreed with Chair Sladek’s comments. Ms. Bzdek noted archeology has been included in the area of adjacency list. Mr. Frick agreed with Mr. Hogestad’s comments regarding the south side of the building and commented the huge arch seems out of character for an industrial building. Ms. Zink stated the change of material at the arch is peculiar. Mr. Illanes noted there are a number of materials used, including metal, brick and stone to address the window heads. He stated the smaller arches are made of brick. Chair Sladek stated the upper part of the tower needs some refinement and suggested modern time improvements that are worthy of the place and iconic status in the city. Mr. Frick pointed out the three recessed windows and discussed the old age industrial look of the distillery. Chair Sladek commended the building for its potential to be an iconic building and commended the inclusion of a water tower. Mr. Hogestad commended the mass and scale of the building for the location and supported the use of materials and window patterns. City of Fort Collins Page 10 March 9, 2016 Mr. Ernest asked about the staff report’s mention of Land Use Code 3.4.7 and their concern about the pub design in terms of inappropriateness of elaborate architectural treatments such as decorative cornices, moldings, and awnings in favor of more simple elements. Chair Sladek asked Ms. Bzdek to address those staff comments. Ms. Bzdek replied that comment was provided for the first round of review and she believes the pub design has since been modified. Mr. Illanes stated the design is reacting to the building across the street but acknowledged the detail of the window configuration has yet to be determined. Mr. Hogestad commented on the panels and pilasters stating that design could perhaps be simplified. Chair Sladek noted the applicant would like to have a distinguishable look. Mr. Illanes stated the detailing will be improved. Chair Sladek thanked the Applicant. [Timestamp: 10:04 p.m.] 5. 632 PETERSON STREET - CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a proposed addition to 632 Peterson Street, a Fort Collins Landmark (Ordinance No. 150, 1997), constructed in 1905. The project is a one-story, L- shaped, rear addition with full footprint basement. The addition would add approximately 1,100 (550 square feet to main level) square feet to the 1,996 (1596 square feet on main level) square-foot original structure, resulting in a total building area of 3,096 (2,146 square feet on main level) square feet. APPLICANT: Steve Josephs, Craftsmen Builders, Inc. Mr. Yatabe disclosed that he knows the property owners personally, but that wouldn’t affect his advising the Commission on this matter. Staff Report Ms. Dorn presented the staff report and described the proposed project. Applicant Presentation Mr. Josephs, Craftsmen Builders, gave the Applicant presentation and further detailed the proposed project. Ms. Webb, property owner, stated they are currently living in a 3 bedroom, one and a half bath house with 4 children. Public Input Roger Hoover stated he looked at this house to purchase in the 1990’s with only himself and his wife and thought the house was too small. He supported the project stating it will turn the gem of a house into a usable family home. Commission Questions and Discussion Mr. Frick asked if the roof of the addition will cut off a corner of an existing window on the east elevation. Mr. Josephs replied he intends to not cut that corner and stated he will adjust the wall height in order to miss the window and will keep the same pitch. Mr. Frick supported the plan. Chair Sladek agreed stating the plan keeps the historic architecture intact. Mr. Lingle asked if the new lean-to could be done in a way to keep it from obscuring the detail on the rear elevation. Mr. Josephs replied the lean-to could be tucked under the return. Chair Sladek noted the front elevation mimics the back and commented on the way the gambrel roof is formed. Ms. Wallace commended the inclusion of the return eaves in the design. Chair Sladek asked if the Commission members are comfortable treating this as a final review, and there were no objections. City of Fort Collins Page 11 March 9, 2016 Commission Deliberation Ms. Zink moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the plans and specifications for the rear addition to the G. R. McDaniel House at 632 Peterson Street as presented, finding that the proposed work (a) will not erode the authenticity or destroy any distinctive exterior feature or characteristic of the improvements or site; and (b) is compatible with the distinctive characteristics of the landmark and with the spirit and purpose of Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code. Mr. Lingle seconded. Motion passed 9-0 [Timestamp: 10:23 p.m.] 6. DOWNTOWN PLAN UPDATE & DISCUSSION Staff Report Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager, provided an update on the Downtown Plan. Specifically, he discussed the two recent public workshops and results from those relating to urban design. He stated there are a number of differing opinions and perspectives involved and noted tradeoffs will be necessary given historic resources and competing objectives. Mr. Gloss went on to discuss upcoming steps including writing the policy and crafting the plan for review. Additionally, he discussed the plan for analyzing various height and material requirements for sub-districts in the downtown area. Mr. Gloss noted there will be a focus on providing a level of clarity regarding what should be required and what is required for new development as well as a focus on dealing with gateways. Mr. Gloss summarized polling results from recent workshops regarding recent projects, acknowledging work needs to be done. He also discussed the blocks in the downtown area most likely to be redeveloped and showed various iterations of development possibilities for those blocks. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion Chair Sladek asked at what point the City decided the downtown area should have 8-10 story buildings and questioned whether that is set in stone. Mr. Gloss replied a long-standing dialogue regarding building heights has occurred and noted there was a great deal of discussion when the two downtown bank tower buildings went in. He commented on the need for building a model in order to add a level of realism and scale. He noted developers would like to have greater certainty in expectations in order to avoid debates for every project. Chair Sladek commented on the fact many developers want to maximize available heights in order to maximize revenue, which sets up a challenging situation between developers and the regulatory side. He questioned whether Fort Collins wants to look like Colorado Springs or be something different. Mr. Lingle commented the current allowable heights seem to be upside down in that we are deliberately holding the historic core down, but allowing taller buildings outside of that core. Mr. Gloss replied the historic core will largely stay the same and acknowledged that the bubble around the historic core poses a huge challenge. Chair Sladek stated this reflects values of the community and the only way to change that is to go back to the days of demolishing historic buildings. Ms. Zink asked about the character and formation of gateways. Mr. Gloss replied there is one gateway at Mulberry and Canyon and one on the east side of Mulberry going up Riverside/Jefferson which will require effort. Additionally, the College and Vine gateway could use some improvements. He stated there are streetscape improvements, potentially plaza-type spaces, landscape treatments, and buildings themselves to be considered. Chair Sladek commended the process. Mr. Lingle asked if landowners or developers have commented on reducing allowable heights. Mr. Gloss replied comments have been mixed on that front and stated owners have enjoyed the modeling process for their properties. City of Fort Collins Page 12 March 9, 2016 Chair Sladek expressed concern about height allowances along College given the mix of historic buildings in the area. Mr. Frick commended this process as providing the opportunity for something unique for Fort Collins. [Timestamp: 11:00 p.m.] OTHER BUSINESS Ms. Wallace announced the Poudre Landmarks Foundation Time Travelers Ball on Saturday, the 19th at the Discovery Museum. Mr. Frick announced the Frozen Dead Guy Day in Nederland. • ADJOURNMENT Chair Sladek adjourned the meeting at 11:02 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by Gretchen Schiager.