Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 10/14/2015City of Fort Collins Page 1 October 14, 2015 Ron Sladek, Chair Doug Ernest, Vice Chair City Council Chambers Meg Dunn City Hall West Kristin Gensmer 300 Laporte Avenue Per Hogestad Fort Collins, Colorado Dave Lingle Alexandra Wallace Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14 Belinda Zink on the Comcast cable system Tom Leeson Karen McWilliams Maren Bzdek Gino Campana Staff Liaison, PDT Director Preservation Planner Preservation Planner Council Liaison The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. Regular Meeting October 14, 2015 Minutes • CALL TO ORDER Chair Sladek called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m. • ROLL CALL PRESENT: Dunn, Zink, Hogestad, Wallace, Gensmer, Lingle, Ernest, Sladek ABSENT: None STAFF: McWilliams, Bzdek, Dorn, Yatabe, Branson, Mapes, Schiager • AGENDA REVIEW Chair Sladek noted that Item #4, Discussion on Trolley Barn Uses, had been postponed until the next meeting. Also, the Applicant for Item #6, Uncommon, had requested to be moved earlier in the agenda, so with the Commission’s agreement, he moved it to follow Item #3. • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. Landmark Preservation Commission Approved by Commission at their November 18, 2015 meeting. City of Fort Collins Page 2 October 14, 2015 • DISCUSSION AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 28, 2015 REGULAR MEETING. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the September 28, 2015 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the minutes for the regular meeting of September 28, 2015. Mr. Hogestad seconded. Motion passed 8-0. 2. 903 STOVER STREET - CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Conceptual/Final Design Review for the Charles A. Lory House and Outbuildings at 903 Stover Street, Fort Collins, Colorado APPLICANT: Kurt Reschenburg and Tia Molander, Property Owners Staff Report Ms. Dorn presented the staff report. Applicant Presentation Dick Anderson, the architect on the project, spoke to the Commission on behalf of the owners. He stated that after consideration a number of variations on the design, they settled on one which ensures the second floor addition will not be seen from Stover Street, while still accommodating the 8’ ceiling height. He said they are very sensitive to the streetscape. The original design has been decreased by 30%, but still left very little yard space, so they would like to demolish the shed. Ms. Molander and Mr. Reschenburg made themselves available for questions. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion A Member asked whether the 1938 frame shed that they want to demolish was found to be contributing to the designation, and if so, would its removal require the owners to go through the demo/alt process. Ms. Dorn said the two outbuildings, the shed and the garage, are cited in the designation. Chair Sladek explained that the Commission would be making the determination about the shed’s demolition, if they feel they have enough information to do so. A Member mentioned that they don’t have a front elevation, but noted that the façade is very formal and symmetrical, while the addition is not symmetrical. A concern was raised that the Commission’s only way to verify that the addition is not going to be seen from the street is by the drawing provided. Mr. Anderson explained his drawing of the sight line, and stated that from the streetscape it would not be noticeable that the addition is not symmetrical. He also commented that the reason they had moved the addition to the north was to preserve the trio of windows. There was a suggestion that a shed dormer would be more appropriate. Mr. Anderson said they had considered that, but having a flat 8’ roof worked better in terms of functionality. He said they could probably entertain lowering the ceiling to 7’6” with a simple shed roof. Another Member agreed that a shed roof would be a better fit. Members expressed concern about not having photos and adequate documentation for the shed. The Applicant provided additional pictures of the shed which were passed around to the Members and entered into the record. Ms. Molander stated that the shed has settled and is unusable, and that runoff from the alley runs into the shed. She said they have not explored fixing it, adding that it is dilapidated, has broken windows, has no protection from the elements and would likely require a complete rebuild. A Member questioned the trapezoidal windows in the gable end, saying that they were not part of the historic vocabulary. A question was raised about whether the chimney was stovepipe or masonry, and whether it would need to be moved. The Applicant said it was a masonry chimney, and that they would extend it with a flue pipe to meet code, if needed. City of Fort Collins Page 3 October 14, 2015 Chair Sladek referenced Section 14-48(b) of the municipal code concerning the report of acceptability, specifically reading from items 1, 2 and 5. He additionally referenced the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation, Standard 9. Members discussed that neither the design of the addition, nor the removal of the shed would meet those standards. The Commission requested front and north elevations of the house, as well as more photos and documentation on the shed, since it is a contributing part of a landmark. They indicated that without this information, they could not proceed with a final review. Ms. Molander interjected that the shed could stay, but the additional living space is the most important. Mr. Reschenburg asserted that the addition would not be visible from Stover, but acknowledged that it would be visible from other directions. The Applicants mentioned that they had worked with City Staff and Architect Bud Frick, modifying the design many times, and thought that they had met the requirements. Commission Feedback Members were in agreement that they were not ready for a final review, requesting that the Applicant come back for another conceptual/final review. Members would like to see a new design with a shed roof sloping down to the west, without the gable, and with the trapezoidal windows changed to rectangular to be more in keeping with the original style. The Commission requested new drawings to reflect the Commission’s feedback, additional details on the materials & dimensions, and more photos and documentation on the shed and the garage. [Timestamp: 6:15 p.m.] 3. 321 N. WHITCOMB STREET - CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Conceptual/Final Design Review for the Garcia Property at 321 North Whitcomb Street, Fort Collins, Colorado APPLICANT: Kate A. Polk, Property Owner Staff Report Ms. Dorn presented the staff report. Applicant Presentation Kevin Murray, the contractor for the project, spoke on behalf of the Applicant and reviewed some of the photos and drawings provided in the packet. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion A Member questioned why the addition was proposed with a gable roof instead of a hip roof, which would be more in keeping with the Classic Cottage style of the home. The Applicant said it could be dropped back from a gable to a hip. Another Member asked what would differentiate the old from the new on the side of the house. The Applicant explained that there is already an offset of a few feet there. The Commission asked about the materials, and the Applicant explained that they would continue the 1x4” channel lap siding around the house. Commission Feedback The Commission would like to see the Applicant come back with a revised design showing a hip roof, as well as more detail about the materials. [Timestamp: 6:35 p.m.] City of Fort Collins Page 4 October 14, 2015 4. DISCUSSION ON TROLLEY BARN USES This item has been postponed until the October 26th meeting. [NOTE: THE ORDER OF ITEMS 5 & 6 WAS SWITCHED] 6. UNCOMMON - 310 S. COLLEGE - REQUEST FOR RECOMMENDATION TO DECISION MAKER PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a Final Review and request for recommendation to Decision Maker of a proposed 6-story mixed use building at 310 South College Avenue. The project is adjacent to several buildings that are designated on the National Register of Historic Places and as Fort Collins Landmarks. This Project Development Plan (PDP) is subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board. APPLICANT: Cathy Mathis, Birdsall Group 444 Mountain Avenue Berthoud, CO 80513 Staff Report Ms. McWilliams presented the staff report, which included a description of the project, an explanation of how the adjacencies were defined, an overview of the relevant Land Use Code sections, and Staff’s conclusions and recommendation. Clark Mapes, City Planner, noted that the Commission had previously requested the staff analysis for the Planning and Zoning Board (P&Z), so his preliminary staff report had also been included in the packet. Spencer Branson, Planning Technician, explained the technology used to create the model of the downtown area and how it was used for the presentation. He then gave a presentation illustrating the differences between the contextual images submitted by the Applicant and those generated by City Staff using modeling techniques. Applicant Presentation Chair Sladek asked the Applicant to focus their comments on the changes to the project since the September 28th work session. Lucia Liley, the attorney representing the Applicant, provided some opening remarks. She described the disagreement between the Applicant and City Staff over the interpretation and application of Land Use Code (LUC) 3.4.7 subsections B and F. Subsection F contains specific criteria that must be followed, as well as specific definitions of what historic structures must be considered, and these were the standards with which the Applicant has endeavored to comply. Alternatively, Subsection B includes a General Standard which she believes Staff has misapplied with regard to this project. Ms. Liley argued that the more specific standard should be used, rather than the more subjective general standard. She gave several examples of other developments in the area that had been approved, asserting that the standards had not been applied consistently to those and the Applicant’s project. Ms. Liley questioned the area of adjacency established by Staff, stating that no basis had been provided for it. She went on to explain the Applicants had done their best to comply with the feedback received from Staff and from the LPC, despite the lack of specifics provided. She read from the City’s adopted Downtown Plan, pointing out how the proposed project supports its vision and goals. She said that the Applicant had received nothing from staff to explain what the negative impact of this project would be on adjacent historic properties, and asked that the Commission keep all this in mind as the architect presents the designs. Chris Johnson with CA Ventures, the project’s developer, continued the Applicant presentation. He gave a brief overview of the company’s experience and history of working with landmarked properties in other communities. He discussed how they approached the challenge to be compatible in this transition area surrounded by varied building sizes and styles. He talked about the changes they’ve made to the project based on Staff and stakeholder input. He read portions of the letters of support in the packet from the owners of the Armstrong Hotel and the DDA. He also read a letter of support from the leaders of the Mountain View Church which was not previously submitted. City of Fort Collins Page 5 October 14, 2015 Eduardo Illanes from OZ Architecture presented the project plans and designs in detail. The presentation included in the packet had been updated, and the revised presentation was entered into the record. Throughout the presentation, Mr. Illanes drew the Commission’s attention to changes made since the work session. He also pointed out areas where their proposed design is below the allowable height limitations for Old Town and has exceeded the step-back requirements. Mr. Illanes talked about creating what they call the “Paseo” for pedestrian connectivity, and how they plan to incorporate benches, planters and possibly some public art. He also addressed the materials to be used, as well as building signage. [Timestamp: 7:35 p.m.] Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion Chair Sladek asked that the Commission first address the project adjacencies. A Member asked Staff to explain the rationale for defining the area of adjacency as a half block around the block on which the property sits. Ms. McWilliams said that due to the mass, bulk, height and visibility of the building, it would be very visible from a half block around. While there was no requirement that the area be rectangular or square, they chose to define it that way for simplicity. Answering a question from the Chair, Mr. Yatabe explained that the LPC is not bound by that definition and has the ability to identify adjacencies as they see fit. A Member read the list of eight historic properties within the half block radius identified on page 115 of the agenda packet. Another Member suggested adding the two-story apartment building across the alley to the southeast, which dates back to the 1960’s and appears to be intact, citing that LUC Section 3.4.7 mentions potentially eligible sites. One Member recalled that at the work session, there seemed to be a consensus that the Armstrong Hotel was the only property they felt was truly adjacent, or would be impacted by the project. Members discussed whether the adjacencies should be extended to include other historic retail buildings, such as those within the 200 block of College Avenue. It was noted that the buildings immediately across Olive were not eligible. The Commission also discussed whether the Applicant should be expected to make the new building relate to surrounding residential properties in terms of architectural elements. A couple of Members expressed particular concern with the lack of transition to a six-6 story building, particularly in light of the considerable bulk in the back. A Member suggested adding the Old Post Office and Wells Fargo to the list of adjacencies, given that they are in the line of sight, and two other Members voiced support for those additions. One Member inquired as to how others felt the properties other than the Armstrong Hotel would be impacted by this project. No one offered any specific comments about that. There was a brief discussion about what might be eligible on the 100-200 block of College Avenue, for example the Aggie Theater or what used to be a car dealership at the corner of Olive and College. Ms. McWilliams said she didn’t have that information immediately available, but that the buildings had not been reviewed recently, and would need to be looked at again. Chair Sladek conducted an informal poll among the Commission to determine whether there was support to include the houses and church along Remington with the list of adjacencies, and the majority agreed. Commission Deliberation Ms. Zink moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission determine that the list of adjacencies for consideration as the context of the Uncommon PDP# 150013 be the following: • The Armstrong Hotel, 259 South College Avenue • Residences, or former residences, located at 220, 408, 412, 416, 418 and 420 Remington Street City of Fort Collins Page 6 October 14, 2015 • The two-story apartment building at 317 Remington Street • Mountain View Church at 328 Remington Street • The Old Post Office at 201 South College Avenue • The Wells Fargo Bank building at 401 South College Avenue Ms. Dunn seconded. Motion passed 6-2, with Zink and Lingle dissenting. Commission Questions and Discussion In response to a Commission question about an image in the staff presentation, Mr. Illanes clarified that there is no parking lot on the alley side of the building. He then asked the Commission how the one- and two-story historic homes on Remington are to be addressed in terms of compatibility. Two Members explained that the issue was not about the residential architecture, but rather how the project relates to the homes on Remington in terms of mass and scale on its backside. The Commission discussed that this is a transitional area, making it difficult to apply the adjacencies. One Member questioned whether the Commission would ever be able to approve a 7- to 9-story building, as allowed on this block [in reference to the “Safeway block”] by the Downtown Plan, if they are defining adjacencies as anything within in the line of sight. Other Members said that with proper articulation, set-backs and step-backs, it would be possible for a building of that height to be compatible. Members discussed how the project could impact the adjacent properties, noting that it impacts the setting, and therefore had the potential to impact eligibility at some point. Commission Members said there were many elements of the design that are positive and are compatible with the context, but most of the Members continued to be troubled by the sheer mass, especially in the back of the building. Mr. Ernest put forth a motion to disapprove, but withdrew the motion so that the Commission could define the relevant findings of fact. Members proposed various findings of fact. A Member commented that the materials used create some congruency with the adjacent Armstrong Hotel, which is an element of the design that does comply with 3.4.7. They discussed the wording of their findings, mostly regarding the scale and massing, and leaning toward support for a recommendation to disapprove. Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to the Planning and Zoning Board disapproval of the Uncommon PDP #150013 finding that the proposed building does not comply fully with Section 3.4.7(B) of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code, which states that “the development plan and building design shall protect and enhance the historical and architectural value” of adjacent historic properties, and that “new structures must be compatible with the historic character of any such historic property, whether on the development site or adjacent thereto.” In particular, the following features do not protect the adjacent properties’ historic value and are incompatible with the area’s historic character: 1. The project is not compatible in terms of its scale and massing in light of the general standard in 3.4.7(B). 2. The project does not use traditional proportions and historic modules that are typical of the adjacent historic properties. 3. The project does not use massing location and appropriate step-backs that would mitigate the massing and scale of the adjacent historic properties. Mr. Hogestad seconded. Mr. Lingle said he was not going to support the motion because by finding that the project is not compatible, the Commission would be saying it’s harming the adjacent historic properties, but he hasn’t heard any evidence to show how or why. Chair Sladek said the back of the building is not compatible along Remington, and that it impacts the setting and context of the historic buildings. Mr. Ernest read the definition of “compatibility” from the Land Use Code, concluding that the project was not in harmony with its adjacencies. Motion passed 6-2 with Zink & Lingle dissenting. [Timestamp: 9:22 p.m.] 5. DISCUSSION OF USES FOR THE CREAMERY BUTTERFLY BUILDING City of Fort Collins Page 7 October 14, 2015 ITEM DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this item is to gather feedback from the landmark Preservation Commission regarding proposed uses for the Trolley Barn on North Howes Street, with consideration of how each use might affect both the building and the site. Staff Report Ms. McWilliams presented a brief staff report. Applicant Presentation Brian Hergott from City of Fort Collins Operations Services gave the Applicant presentation. Commission Questions and Discussion Members inquired about the status of the building’s designation. Staff said that City Management committed to designating the Butterfly Building, the Haston Oil property, and the former City Hall (now Operations Services). The Commission had previously specified that it didn’t want to move forward with designation until construction of its setting is finished. In response to a Commission question, Mr. Hergott said the site plan is the same one that the LPC approved in February. Members discussed the plan for reproducing the sign. Mr. Hergott said steel structure is completed, but they are waiting for a tenant for the space before completing it. Staff confirmed that the Dairy Gold name was not trademarked, and could be used for the sign. Members commented that lettering of the sign could be flexible depending on the tenant and use. The City will maintain ownership of the building, but may lease it to a private enterprise. When asked, the Commission did not specify any restrictions on exterior modifications, but said they should be minimal and would need to be approved by the LPC. Some repairs have been made to the building, including removing lead paint and installing windows. The building will have all utilities, and the interior will be subject to tenant finish. A Member asked whether there was a possibility that the City would work with a tenant on the finish. Mr. Hergott said they could discuss that. There was also a question raised about whether there were possible state tax credits or DDA incentive programs that a tenant may be able to access, but that information was not available. Mr. Hergott asked whether someone from the Commission would want to participate in a Committee to review proposals in December. Chair Sladek asked for the Commission to be notified about that so they could get someone involved. [Timestamp: 9:53 p.m.] • OTHER BUSINESS None • ADJOURNMENT Chair Sladek adjourned the meeting at 9:53 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by Gretchen Schiager.