Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 12/11/2013LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting December 11, 2013 Minutes Council Liaison: Gino Campana (970-460-6329) Staff Liaison: Laurie Kadrich (970-221-6750) Commission Chairperson: Ron Sladek CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Commission was called to order by Chair Sladek with a quorum present at 5:33 p.m. at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Maren Bzdek, Doug Ernest, Pat Tvede, Alexandra Wallace, and Belinda Zink were present. Dave Lingle was excused. Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner, and Joshua Weinberg, City Planner, represented City staff. GUESTS: Karen Manci, Matt Baker, Kyle Lambrecht, Brandon Silar APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of the October 9, 2013 meeting are in need of correction as follows: Ms. Bzdek commented that the Commission’s discussion regarding historic vs. architectural significance at 315 Whedbee Street was not accurately captured on page two of these minutes. Mr. Ernest’s recollection of the discussion centered on the fact that Mr. Lingle raised an issue about the integrity of the house as an architectural piece and recalls commenting that given the importance of the Millers and their photography to the history of Fort Collins and the photographic record they created in the first half of the 20th century, even if the house didn’t qualify under the standard of architectural integrity, the importance of the Millers would be sufficient to allow the house to be designated. Additional thought was given to the fact that if, in the future, the house was altered by an owner, and was not designated under the standard for architectural integrity, would the criteria for designating a landmark just for the historic person be sufficient to protect the architectural integrity if the commission had not specified that? Ms. Bzdek would like these details added to the minutes as they pertain to future actions related to the property. Chair Sladek asked if staff would listen to that portion of that meeting to ensure those details are reflected in the minutes. Ms. McWilliams agreed. Chair Sladek noted that there is a typo on page three of the minutes where the spelling of Mr. Shuff’s name is in need of correction. SUMMARY OF MEETING: The Commission will review the corrected October 9, 2013 minutes at its next meeting. The Commission voted to recommend approval of the nomination of the Great Western Sugar Company effluent flume and bridge for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, and directed staff to finalize the submittal to the State Historic Preservation Office. The Commission was updated on North College improvements from Conifer to Willox. The Commission was updated on River District Design Guidelines. The Commission granted final approval to the replacement of second story windows in the building located at 252, 254, 256 Linden Street. Landmark Preservation Commission December 11, 2013 - 2 - Design Assistance provider list: Chair Sladek commented that corrections need to be made on three of the motions that were made. These motions were made approving the firm but not the individuals. Ms. McWilliams added that she recalled an additional individual along with Jim Cox associated with Architecture Plus. In looking at the minutes, Ms. Tvede noted that Mr. Cox was the only person who applied. Chair Sladek thought he recalled a third person as well but doesn’t see another name noted in the minutes. Chair Sladek pointed out that the motion for Architecture Plus was amended during that session and states that Jim Cox meets the criteria so there are just two motions that need to be amended regarding Anderson Associates and Aller.Lingle.Massey Architects. Ms. Tvede moved the original motions be amended to indicate; One, Aller.Lingle.Massey Architects is only for David Lingle and Ian Shuff, and, two, Anderson Associates is only for Dick Anderson. Ms. Bzdek seconded the motion. Motion passed: (6-0). Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the minutes of October 9, 2013 as amended. Ms. Wallace seconded the motion. Ms. Zink reminds the commission that they requested the minutes be revised and seen again before approval. Mr. Ernest rescinds motion. Ms. Wallace seconded. The commission will take a final look at these minutes at the next meeting when they have the corrected version. REVIEW AND COMMENT: NOMINATION TO THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES, SUGAR COMPANY EFFLUENT FLUME AND BRIDGE; KAREN MCWILLIAMS, PRESERVATION PLANNER AND KAREN MANCI, SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER Chair Sladek recused himself as he is the author of this nomination. Mr. Ernest will Chair this portion of meeting. Ms. McWilliams introduced Karen Manci, Senior Environmental Planner, in the City’s Natural Resources Department, and noted that staff and applicant are the same party regarding this property. The City of Fort Collins owns the property, has initiated this National Register designation process and is pursuing the recognition of the property on the National Register. The Commission is being asked to review and comment on the nomination in accordance with Colorado Certified Local Government Regulations, which state that whenever a nomination to the National Register of Historic Places occurs within the municipality, the local Historic Preservation Commission and the chief elected official are both given the opportunity to provide comments. Following this review, the Commission and the chief elected official would provide the State Historic Preservation Office with either a form, provided by the State, or letter outlining support for or objections to this nomination. This information will then go before the State Review Board which will incorporate the comments into their discussion and consideration of the nomination at its January 17, 2014 meeting at the History Colorado Center in Denver. The public is invited to attend. Landmark Preservation Commission December 11, 2013 - 3 - Ms. McWilliams provided background information that the 1926 Great Western Sugar Company flume and bridge are significant for their long industry association with 20th century beet sugar manufacturing and industrial waste disposal. They are also important as good engineering examples of a suspension bridge and a flume designed for industrial use. The historic, engineered features on the site represent a type, period, and method of construction consistent with suspension bridge and flume design of the era, locally built and adapted to the particular need for industrial waste disposal. The Great Western Sugar Company flume and bridge spanned the Cache La Poudre River approximately a mile and a half east of downtown Fort Collins and they are also located about the same distance southeast of the former Fort Collins Beet Sugar Factory which was a massive industrial complex that was constructed in 1903 and operated through 1955. Approximately two acres in size, the site most notably holds a suspension bridge which holds an open metal flume extending across the river to fields to the north and southeast. In addition, segments of the flume remain on the ground nearby in their original locations. All of these features date from 1926 and have been out of use since the plant closed in the mid-1950s. The property is part of the Kingfisher Point Natural Areas which is also adjacent to Nix Farm and is managed by the Natural Areas program. This nomination was submitted to the State several months ago; however, our recent flood has affected the resources a bit. The water cleared the bridge and pressed against the flume elements on the ground. Some elements were buried by mud and debris. The water pushed against one side of the flume which caused the flume some additional cracks and breaks and some of the wooden support bars were washed away from the flume by the flood waters. Ms. McWilliams said that the review criteria for evaluating the listing for properties on the National Register of Historic Places are essentially the same criteria that we use for Fort Collins Landmark designations: Criterion A properties are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history; Criterion B are associated with the lives of significant persons in the past; Criterion C embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; and Criterion D, which have yielded or are likely to yield information important in history or pre-history. The National Register staff feels that this property qualifies under Criterion A and C; the Commission may recommend additional criterion. Mr. Ernest, understanding that the City represents both the staff and applicant on this property, asked if the applicant would like to give a presentation. Ms. Manci responded that they are excited about the nomination and added that it is beneficial that the City Natural Areas Department manages the land on both sides of the flume and that there is no other land owner involved other than the City of Fort Collins. Mr. Ernest invited the Commission members to ask questions and had a question of his own about the aerial photograph where it appears that there is a projection for an additional trail on the north side of the river. It also looks like there’s a trail on the south side. He wondered if there would need to be any further work to regarding accessing this structure. Ms. Manci replied that they would like to bring the public to the structure and that it is casually accessed by the public now. It’s very close to the paved trail on the south side – probably 100 feet from the trail with very easy access there, and stated that they do prohibit people from crossing the river on the flume. Landmark Preservation Commission December 11, 2013 - 4 - Ms. Bzdek inquired about whether the minor damage from the recent flood inspired any thought about protection of the resource moving forward relative to the floodplain. Ms. Manci responded that they haven’t thought about how they would protect the structure during a flood event and that it would be difficult because the floodplain in that area can’t be changed, such as with berming. The only thing she would suggest now is that they would try to keep the area clear of downed debris, moving that off-site. Ms. Manci believes the impact of this flood event was greater due to the fire damage upstream and the amount of debris moving down river. This is certainly something they can think about but the issue is that the whole structure is in the floodplain. Mr. Ernest asked if there were any further LPC questions for the applicant and City staff or if the public had any questions or comment. Seeing none, Mr. Ernest called for a motion. Ms. Bzdek moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission confirms that in its opinion the Great Western Sugar Company Effluent Flume and Bridge represents important aspects of Fort Collins’ industrial past and environmental history and the site meets the criteria of the National Register, specifically under Criteria A and C, through retention of a high degree of physical integrity. The LPC directs staff to finalize the form to this effect for submittal to the State Historic Preservation Office in accordance with Colorado Certified Local Government Guidelines. Ms. Tvede seconded the motion. Mr. Ernest asked if there were any further comments. Mr. Ernest commented that we would be remiss if we didn’t recognize the tremendous effort Ron Sladek made in doing the research and noted the incredible amount of detail in his report. He also commented that Mr. Sladek originally struggled to find information, particularly in the local newspapers and what a revelation it was when he found the information in the CU Norlin Library Archives. They have all of the papers of the Great Western Sugar Company and noted that this is something for historians to keep in mind. Mr. Ernest also pointed out that, as Mr. Sladek noted, there are not that many suspension bridges in the State of Colorado, so this bridge is unique in a lot of different ways. Ms. Bzdek seconded Mr. Ernest’s commendation of Mr. Sladek’s work and added that it is an excellent, well researched document and noted that the bibliography is great for moving forward for anyone doing research on the industrial history of Fort Collins and in particular, the sugar beet industry. Ms. Bzdek also noted the value of recognizing industrial heritage sites like this and the importance of allowing us to tell a more complete story through preservation of our community’s history. We have a lot of beautiful buildings, commercial and residential, that we’ve protected and preserved. As well as our industrial history, and some of the more problematic aspects of our past are also an important part of our narrative as a community. This is a great one because it shows both local innovation and something specific about the history of the industry and the technology involved. It also points to the environmental history of our community in a particular way in terms of waste management and degradation of our resources. If we don’t have sites like this as part of our matrix of preserved sights, then we’re in danger of preserving a sanitized version of our past. Ms. Bzdek would like to see more things like this brought forward and thinks industrial heritage sights can be particularly difficult to preserve because if adaptive reuse is involved, like for factory sites, that can be very difficult to do and we are really lucky as pointed out that not only do we have a site that is significant from an engineering standpoint, it happens to be located on City property, without other property owners. It is also in a setting that allows us to have a fair amount of Landmark Preservation Commission December 11, 2013 - 5 - certainty that its integrity is going to be preserved outside of the fact that it happens to be in the floodplain. Ms. Bzdek stated that she wants to be sure that gets recognized and is on the record and that this isn’t just an anomalous site but is actually a site that is centrally important to the history of the City. It’s not just a curiosity. Mr. Ernest asked if there were further comments. Ms. Zink wanted to add that an excellent next step would be to complete an historic structure assessment just to evaluate it and see what the possibilities could be for stabilization, and whether stabilization is needed, and its preservation. Mr. Ernest asks if there are further comments. Seeing none, vote was taken. Motion passed: (6-0). Mr. Sladek returned to chair the remainder of the meeting. PROJECT UPDATE: NORTH COLLEGE IMPROVEMENTS – CONIFER TO WILLOX; MATT BAKER, STREET OVERSIZING PROGRAM MANAGER, KYLE LAMBRECHT, CIVIL ENGINEER II, JOSH WEINBERG, PRESERVATION PLANNER Mr. Weinberg introduced Matt Baker and Kyle Lambrecht from the City’s Capital Projects Department. Mr. Baker and Mr. Lambrecht have been working on the improvement of North College Ave. from Conifer to Willox and gave the Commission an update on the project including the historic resources that were evaluated along the corridor and some of the impacts and proposed mitigation to those resources. Mr. Baker noted that the City has made a significant investment on North College Ave. which started on College and Cherry at the Jefferson intersection in 2004, completed the section in front of King Soopers in 2010, and completed the first segment of the capital project work from Conifer to the river last year. The segment between Conifer and Willox Lane is the last and is currently under design with anticipated construction in the summer of 2014. The existing conditions on College Ave. have been bleak for a long time. There are no pedestrian ways; the City scabbed in a shoulder in 1986 that works out as a defacto bike lane. There are no drainage improvements and the area floods in the rain. Access is willy-nilly with big, open driveways, etc. We have a concept plan that looks similar to what we built just south of here from Conifer to the river. Mr. Baker said they will be putting in sidewalks with landscape parkways. There will be a bike lane, pedestrian lighting, and consolidation of all access points and single driveway points. The big feature of this project that is different from the other projects on College Ave. is that it will include landscaped medians up and down the corridor for that half-mile. That is in accordance with the North College Access Plan and will help travelers through the area. Funding is partially City with about four million dollars of local City funds and five million dollars in Federal aid. Since this is a Federal aid project, we have to follow the Federal aid processes which include a lot of storm water management, disadvantaged businesses, Uniform Act, etc. We do follow Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and Section 4F of the Department of Transportation Act very carefully. We have been working with City staff to recognize the important historic resources in Landmark Preservation Commission December 11, 2013 - 6 - the area. We’ve done an historic inventory of each parcel along this corridor and with input from CDOT and the State Historic Preservation office and City staff; we’ve identified three properties that are historically eligible for the National Register. The first one is 1220 N. College – the El Palomino Hotel built in 46-49 and expanded again in 1956. It is associated with early automobile tourism on the Lincoln Highway and is the best representative of post-World War II motor courts in the Fort Collins area. The next property is 1304 N. College Ave. – the bay service station which is currently Rulon Service Station, constructed in 1955. It is also associated with automobile tourist traffic and is an example of an oblong box-type service station. The historical inventory and improvements we did show this project will not impact the historical significance of the Rulon Service Station. The last property is the Montclair Hotel constructed in 1959 with some mobile home spaces added in the back in 1965. It is also an intact example of a post-war motel along the 287 travel route. The buildings are typical of a 1950s motor court hotel. There is really nothing particularly notable about the building’s design but it is still an intact example of the motor court. As part of the Federal process, we’ve done an Alternatives Analysis of all of these properties which Mr. Lambrecht will report on. Mr. Lambrecht advised the Commission that of the three eligible properties, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), determined that plan improvements along the frontages of the El Palomino Hotel, at the northeast corner of College and Conifer, and the Montclair Lodge at the northwest corner of College and Hibdon, would cause adverse effect to their frontages. Once this was determined, the City needed to go through an Alternatives Analysis to try to minimize the impact to the historic characteristics of the property yet still meet project goals. Both properties went through a standard Alternatives Analysis looking at various options. Mr. Lambrecht showed the Commission the analysis for the El Palomino. The analysis for the Montclair followed this very closely. For the El Palomino, the baseline analysis was looking at what would it look like if a standard four lane arterial cross- section was placed along this frontage. That would include six foot detached sidewalks, a ten foot landscape parkway, curb and gutter and an on-street eight foot bike lane. Just for reference, from the center line of the roadway to the back of the walk, is 62 feet. If you’re familiar with the El Palomino’s frontage, there are mature evergreen trees and some other landscaping. There is also a pool and buildings. This option would pose significant impacts to some of the historic characteristics of the landscaping, especially along the frontage. The pool and buildings are not impacted but some of the characteristics that make that property eligible are so we looked at a secondary option, focusing on our project cross-section which is unique to the corridor in general using more of a context sensitive design solution. This didn’t gain us much because the footprint is almost the same as we have an eight foot detached sidewalk and a seven and a half foot landscape parkway which doesn’t buy us any width. We looked at shifting the road and this got us about seven additional feet toward the center line from 62 to 55 feet but again, we couldn’t go too much because if we shifted it too far to the west, we impacted properties on the west. The third cross section we looked at was an attached sidewalk with the road shift. With the attached walk and the shift, we looked at a nine foot attached walk and reduced the distance from the center line to the back of the walk from 62 feet to 48 feet which is significant when we’re looking at the roadway cross section. The significant evergreen trees will not be impacted. What we’re impacting are some of the bushes in the frontage area. We feel that this is a good compromise, minimizing as much as we can the impact to the historical characteristics of the site yet still meeting project goals as far as mobility and multi-modal improvements. The one thing we give up Landmark Preservation Commission December 11, 2013 - 7 - is that there aren’t as many urban design characteristics that we can incorporate with an attached walk. Plus, as far as a safety standpoint, you are pushing pedestrians a little closer to the road with an attached walk but this is the alternative that we felt was the best option for the El Palomino and this is the one that we are presenting to the FHWA that we would like to move forward with. As far as mitigation goes, since the El Palomino and the Montclair Lodge were deemed to have adverse impacts, we do have to do some kind of mitigation for these two sites. We are going to be pursuing a Level Two Archival Documentation with the FHWA as defined by the Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation. There are three levels of documentation. The Level Two is the intermediate level. Along with that, we will do archival photography. The key is to make sure we do this before the construction starts so we can really capture how the sites look today. As Mr. Baker mentioned, since the improvements along the Rulon’s frontage are minimal, no mitigation is required. Chair Sladek asks if the public or Commission would like to comment. Seeing none, Chair Sladek thanks the staff for their work in minimizing the impact to the motel sites and adds that he thinks the mitigation is appropriate. This was an informational presentation with no vote required. RIVER DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES; TED SHEPARD, CHIEF CITY PLANNER, JOSH WEINBERG, PRESERVATION PLANNER Mr. Weinberg reminded the Commission that this is a continuation of an item that was discussed at the Commission’s October 23, 2013 work session when the Commission looked at the work in progress of the Old Town Historic District Design Guidelines. At that time, the Commission was slated to look at the River District Design Guidelines as well but ran out of time. Staff would like to present the River District Design Guidelines and invite the Commission to comment. As an overview, the goals of the River District project are to identify, evaluate, and implement measures to achieve a high quality of site and building design for new, non-industrial development projects that preserve and promote the unique character of the River District. Mr. Weinberg introduced Mr. Shepard who gave a PowerPoint presentation. Mr. Shepard provided an update and reminded the Commission that this is a work in progress and that staff will be available to return to update the Commission as the project progresses. In the last couple of years, we’ve had several projects in this area including Legacy Apartments which is almost complete, the CSU Engines and Energy Conversion Lab which is under construction, the project that is referred to as Encompass Block One, which is the old concrete batch plant right across from Legacy. They are doing excavation now. The final project (referred to as Feeders Supply) is still in the review process which involves preserving the existing Feeders Supply building, building a new building next door to the south which would front on Linden, and a new apartment building to the northwest that would front on Willow Street. As each of these projects came in, we found out that each project began a very long, detailed conversation with a lot of stakeholders about how to proceed with design. As a result of these complexities, we decided to go into the standards that are presently governing the area (presently the RDR Zone, Downtown River District Zone) and clarify them. The zoning code doesn’t allow for clarification or explanatory paragraphs. We are advised by our legal staff not to put pictures in our code. We thought this wasn’t working for all stakeholders and is very time consuming. One of the motivations is to clarify and explain a little Landmark Preservation Commission December 11, 2013 - 8 - more about the vision and how to preserve the character because we have five projects going. The vision is different than the Old Town historic area and this area is a little more industrial and spread out. Buildings are not as detailed or embellished, not as Victorian. There are active industrial uses and the area is a little grittier with bigger shoulders. It’s not as dainty and there’s not as much retail but has a lot of character. One of the guiding principles is that new development doesn’t have to be as ornate, cornices don’t have to be as detailed. We still want appropriate materials, form, and scale. Especially, in relationship to designated historic properties but it doesn’t have to have that retail store front type of ornamentation. The boundary is outlined in yellow and exactly replicates the RDR Zone. The RDR Zone has been with us since 1997 and was established with the adoption of the Land Use Code. It has over 25 standards in that zone but they are written very matter of factly, very crisply. They don’t have a lot of room for interpretation so we end up having to reinvent the wheel every time a new project comes in. These standards and guidelines will help us immensely with guiding projects to come through that are context sensitive. This project is not a zone district change and doesn’t address permitted uses. It doesn’t add or take away uses. Industrial uses that are there are okay. Industrial uses are permitted, along with trucks, and outdoor storage to a degree. One of the things we heard from stakeholders in part of our feedback was that they requested we leave room for trucks to turn and to make sure trucks can get in and out of Ranchway Feed and to make sure this area still has operational, functional capability. We totally agree - that’s part of its character. We want to start at the neighborhood scale which would be the zone district and we have standards related to that. Then, we want to determine what happens on the site in terms of building placement, parking lot placement (if any), landscaping, bicycle parking, service doors, fire access, trash enclosures, site plan elements and the actual building itself. Those are the three scales we will be looking at working down from neighborhood to site to building. Mr. Shepard added that the emphasis is a little different from the presentation they received from Norie Winter and his consulting group as to the extent of the standards and guidelines in that they are not as detailed, ornate, or embellished in this area. Forms can be simpler but materials, color, and mass and scale is what we’re paying very close attention to. Chair Sladek asks if there are any comments from the public. Citizen, Brandon Silar from the audience comments that the project looks great. Ms. Bzdek asks Mr. Shepard what the next stage of development is for the guidelines. Mr. Shepard replied that staff would like to return to the Commission with the document as it is rather voluminous and states that staff would like to go to the Planning and Zoning Board work session the first Friday in January to provide an update and sometime after that, come back to the Commission at a work session so they can look at the whole document and get a feel for its organization. Ms. Bzdek inquires as to whether the conversation with the Planning and Zoning Board takes into account the number of parking spaces that are projected to be necessary for that area. Mr. Shepard replied that there are varying levels of response. The City of Fort Collins Transportation Planning Department and Parking Services Department and at that time, the Advance Planning Department, had the Downtown Parking Plan. Randy Hensley, our Parking Services Manager was the project manager along with consultants. There are a variety of approaches but the fundamental aspect of the Land Use Code is that there is no required minimum parking in this area because it’s in the Transit Oriented Development Overlay Zone (TOD), which has been in effect since 1997. However, there is an exception to that. Several months ago in the TOD, the City Council adopted a one year change and for residential only there is now a minimum parking requirement which is Landmark Preservation Commission December 11, 2013 - 9 - 70% of what would otherwise be required if you were located outside the TOD. If you had a suburban apartment complex that needed 100 parking spaces, in the TOD now (for about nine more months) you would need 70 spaces. This was a result of the project referred to as The Summit. Ms. Bzdek understands that it’s not the Commission’s purvey here but also wonders when looking at the guidelines, if there is any kind of reference to what is adequate and how these fit together as a whole? Mr. Shepard responded that the City does say in the draft standards and guidelines that should you provide parking on your site, it needs to be discreetly placed so that it is not on a public street frontage and access would be by alley or private drive. If it does have street frontage parking, it has to be very minimal and screened because we don’t want surface parking lots along our street edges so it is addressed but in terms of requiring minimum parking for a non- residential land use in this area, there is no minimum requirement. That doesn’t mean that projects come in with no parking, it just means that we are not creating a mandate. If the private sector wants to respond with parking, they may but they can’t exceed a certain percentage. It is case by case. Mr. Ernest said that he attended the citizen meeting in which Mr. Shepard and Mr. Winter presented the study and one of the concerns raised by stakeholders was the statement in the Norie Winter report “keeps the automobile subordinate”. That seemed to raise some red flags in people thinking the thought behind the design was to replace the automobile with bicycles. Mr. Ernest realizes that’s not the intent but asked if those issues been addressed with that community? Mr. Shepard remarked that this is a good point and said that we don’t want to confuse where to put your parking with what mode that you take in your everyday travel throughout our community. Mr. Sladek also comments that he read the same statement in the document. Mr. Ernest stated that it was on page 26 of the study. Ms. Bzdek wondered if the floodplain has been taken into consideration and where that fits into this, if at all. Mr. Shepard responded that the floodway/floodplain is governed by the Water Board and has its own flood place use permit system. We are sticking with buildings, site design, and neighborhood urban design. We’re letting the floodplain regulations take care of themselves. Mr. Sladek asked Mr. Shepard what’s going on with Block One. He noticed that there’s a lot of work on the river bank. Mr. Shepard said that there is stream bank stabilization. Our Storm Water Utility would not allow a building the size of Encompass Block One to be constructed that close to the bank without the bank being stabilized so part of the review of the project was to do a bank stabilization study. It was submitted as a supplemental and was reviewed by Storm Water staff, Engineering, and Environmental staff. There is also excavation going on for the building itself. Mr. Sladek saw the bank completely torn out and excavated down. Mr. Shepard said that the bank that was removed was not in a natural state and had been filled with concrete rubble and explained that they had to take out the old rubble before they could rebuild and add vegetation. Mr. Sladek has noticed a lot of concrete along the banks of the river in that area. Mr. Sladek lets Mr. Shepard know that he went through the document that the Commission was given and marked some locations where there are some typos and structural problems with pagination in one section, and a few other things and asks Mr. Shepard if he will ask the consultant for correction. Landmark Preservation Commission December 11, 2013 - 10 - Ms. Zink comments about the pages regarding building materials and had questions about the mention of masonry, glass, and metal. She wondered if there should be any reference to stucco (whether positive or negative), fiber cement siding or wood siding. It seems like those are potentially materials that could work in an industrial type setting. She commented that after looking at the information on mass and scale, it seems like the examples given on page 55 are simple buildings and there may be a contradiction between the recommendations on page 55 for industrial forms and the information on the next page where it speaks about building articulation techniques, which seem contradictory. She adds that the examples are a little visually jarring. Mr. Shepard asks whether she thinks the examples are too detailed and embellished. Ms. Zink replies that on page 55, the City is calling for simple and more traditional forms and on page 56, they are more articulated, fussy, and ornate. She also asks whether there should be some discussion of window shading devices which seems like an important issue when trying to design energy efficient buildings. Ms. Bzdek comments that she would like to see a negative example on page 53, item number 6.2. The exact imitation of historic styles is inappropriate for new construction and that may be difficult to illustrate but may be an example where an item which may otherwise seem pleasing is inappropriate. Mr. Sladek adds that this is a good point. Mr. Sladek also points out that throughout the document in various places, they refer to north, south, east, and west when in fact, the area is on a diagonal which results in a lot of confusion and would like to see the consultants clean that up using northwest, southwest, etc. so that it reflects the actual direction. Mr. Ernest agrees. Mr. Sladek recalled that Mr. Lingle had some comments on this document and wants to make sure those are collected from him and asks Mr. Weinberg if he will get those from Mr. Lingle. Mr. Sladek thinks that overall the document is great and will really help guide future development in the area. There’s still a little work to be done on it but it looks like we’re heading in the right direction. The Commission is pretty happy with it and looking forward to seeing it come to completion in the near future. CONCEPTUAL AND FINAL REVIEW, 252/254/256 LINDEN STREET, SECOND-LEVEL WINDOW REPLACEMENT AND LINDEN STREET ENTRY REPLACEMENT; BRANDON SILAR, LARK DESIGN/BUILD LLC Staff report was presented by Mr. Weinberg. This is a request for a conceptual and final review for second level window replacement and entry replacement at the building which is comprised of a variety of different addresses, 252, 254, and 256 Linden Street. The building is a non- contributing element of the Old Town Historic District. The non-contributing status of the building results from alterations the building has undergone throughout its history. According to the County assessor, it is believed to be the oldest building in the historic district, which gives it a construction date of 1867. The applicant is requesting to replace all existing windows on the second level and also the entryway as mentioned. Mr. Weinberg showed slides to illustrate the request. The building is on the corner of Jefferson and Linden Street. The second level has a Landmark Preservation Commission December 11, 2013 - 11 - variety of different shapes of windows and there are a variety of different types of windows in the openings. Mr. Weinberg’s understanding is that the openings will be retained and the applicant is just proposing to replace the windows. The entry being discussed is at the southern-most entry of the building. Because this application is regarding a non-contributing building, when the Commission looks at this type of proposal, typically, their concern is the impact the changes will have on the character of the entire historic district which the building is within, rather than changes to the specific building. Alterations to properties within Fort Collins Landmark Districts are reviews for compliance with Municipal Code 1448 and the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation apply to work within the historic districts. Those standards and guidelines are in the Commission’s staff report and if the Commission finds that the work proposed for this non- contributing building does not have a detrimental impact to the historic district and meets these standards, the Commission can pass a motion stating that. Because the applicant does not have an exact idea of what type of windows are going to go in the second level, the applicant can bring that information back at a later time if that is of concern. Applicant, Brandon Silar states that he is at the hearing to answer questions. Ms. Tvede inquires whether all the windows will be the same. Mr. Silar replies that they want to go with the same style on every window on the second level. There are now three shapes on the building but all three types of windows on the second level will have the same general characteristics. Ms. Bzdek has questions about the interior piping visible on the entry. Mr. Silar explains that these are fire risers that currently exist behind the glass block which is now enclosed but they would like to expose this. Mr. Sladek invites other questions and asks if there are features in this building that indicate its age. Mr. Silar replies that during excavation, they found a lot of old glass, and old, depression era bottles that were shattered. They think that the back portion of the building is the oldest. Someone added a front portion that faces Linden. The rounded corner of this portion suggests more of a deco addition, possibly in the 20s. There are rumors of passage ways under the foundation but found none. Ms. Wallace asks if the windows are historic and whether Mr. Silar has any plans of what to do with them. Mr. Silar replies that the windows are not historic and that some are vinyl. The oldest windows are slender wood frame with metal edging on a double pane which suggests they are more modern. Some windows are leaking which is the reason for the request to replace. Mr. Sladek asks what type of windows they are looking at replacing them with. Mr. Silar replies that they think the windows on the ground floor are historically accurate but not the windows on the second level. They have been unable to find anything like the windows on the bottom without custom ordering from a high-end shop. New materials for the second level will likely be vinyl. Interested in matching what is there now, they will be sliders on the front and the openings will not be modified. Mr. Sladek reiterates that the Commission is not looking at the impact to the building itself but the impact to the district and asks for the Commission’s thoughts. Ms. Tvede thinks that the fact that the new windows will be uniform and similar to what’s below will be a definite improvement to the building and can’t see that it has any impact whatsoever on the district. Ms. Bzdek can’t see Landmark Preservation Commission December 11, 2013 - 12 - any impact positive or negative to the district. Mr. Sladek asks if the Commission needs any further information relating to the windows and the entry that need to be reviewed. Ms. Tvede would like all windows to be uniform and blend in with the building. Mr. Silar is asking for a full replacement of all windows on the top story but is still working with the owner of the building and their budget and may need to do the work in stages. Ms. Tvede moved that the LPC grant final approval to the proposed work on 252, 254, 256, Linden Street, a non-contributing building, which will not have a detrimental impact on the district. The work therefore meets the standards of Section 1448 of the Municipal Code as well as complies with the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. Ms. Zink seconded the motion. Motion passed: (6-0). OTHER BUSINESS: Mr. Ernest mentioned that he attended the Boards and Commissions Community Conversation on City strategic planning for the next three to five years and will send an email to the Commission with more information. The Idea Lab was mentioned at the meeting. Mr. Ernest also mentioned that the Poudre Landmark Foundation is hosting the State Historic Fund Local Community Round Table at the Avery Carriage House on February 12, 2014. All interested parties are welcome to attend. Mr. Sladek informed the Commission that he received a call from the Governor’s office advising him that he had been appointed to serve on the Colorado State Historic Preservation Review Board in Denver at the State Historical Society. He is thrilled and will start with the January meeting. Meeting adjourned at7:04p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by Lori Bichler