Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 09/09/2015City of Fort Collins Page 1 September 9, 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. Minutes Regular Meeting September 9, 2015 5:30 PM  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, Sladek ABSENT: None STAFF: McWilliams, Bzdek, Dorn, Schiager  PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. Landmark Preservation Commission Approved by Commission at their October 26, 2015 meeting. City of Fort Collins Page 2 September 9, 2015  DISCUSSION AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 12, 2015 REGULAR MEETING. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the August 12, 2015 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. Mr. Hogestad and Mr. Lingle abstained from voting because they did not attend the August 12, 2015 meeting. Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the minutes of the regular meeting of August 12, 2015. Ms. Gensmer seconded. Motion passed 6-0. [Timestamp: 5:39 p.m.] 2. CREAMERY LABORATORY "BUTTERFLY" BUILDING UPDATE Annie Bierbower, Civic Engagement Liaison with the City of Fort Collins, presented an update to the Commission about public outreach opportunities regarding the use of the Creamery Laboratory (Butterfly Building). She informed the Commission about a public open house that would take place on Tuesday, September 15th at 6:00 p.m. in the Community Room at 215 N. Mason. There will be a short presentation and tour of the building. She is trying to find someone with a personal connection to the building to speak or lead the tour. There will also be a voting session where participants can vote on suggested uses for the building that the City gathered through feedback on Idea Lab, although the final decision will be made by the City Manager. They will have a book on Googie Architecture at the event, as well as an ice cream social. Ms. Bierbower invited the Commission to participate in the event, and make suggestions for the building. Commission Questions and Discussion Chair Sladek asked whether they could e-mail their suggestions, since they had not had time to think about it. There was discussion about the possibility of a historical walking tour. Ideas were offered on how to find a former Creamery employee. A Member suggested using the Facebook page “You know you grew up in Fort Collins, CO if you remember...” to find a former employee. Staff mentioned that Carol Tunner had done an exhaustive oral history on the Creamery and may have information. The Commission also asked about the status of the landmark designation. Staff said it should be designated locally soon. Chair Sladek said it probably wouldn’t be approved for the National or State Registry due to the significant changes to the setting. [Timestamp: 5:54 p.m.] At this point in the meeting, Chair Sladek announced the resignation of Commission Member Maren Bzdek who had taken a position as a Historic Preservation Planner with the City, expressing appreciation for her service. 3. 220 REMINGTON STREET - FINAL REVIEW, PART 2 STATE TAX CREDIT FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This item is a Final Review of the Part 2 State Tax Credit for Historic Preservation, for the interior and exterior rehabilitation and restoration of the Bode property at 220 Remington Street. APPLICANT: Colleen Scholz, Owner Staff Report Ms. Dorn presented the staff report. City of Fort Collins Page 3 September 9, 2015 Applicant Presentation Dr. Scholz introduced herself and said she would be happy to answer any questions, but did not give a presentation. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion A Member commented that it would be helpful to have the ordinance establishing the property as a local ordinance included in the staff report. Ms. McWilliams said they would insert the ordinance information into the staff report. A Member also confirmed that the findings of fact should be included in the wording of the motion. Mr. Yatabe suggested some changes to the language of the suggested motion provided by Staff. Commission Deliberation Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission, as a reviewing entity under CRS Section 39-22-514, approve Part 2 State Tax Credit for Historic Preservation for the rehabilitation and restoration work completed on the Bode property located at 220 Remington Street, and authorize the signing of the verification form, finding that: 1. The property located at 220 Remington Street is a qualified property that is eligible for tax credits, per state statute. 2. The work conforms to the description and plans submitted in Part 1. 3. The project was completed in 24 months or less. 4. The work meets the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Ms. Wallace seconded. Motion passed 8-0. The Commission thanked the Applicant for her work on the property. [Timestamp: 6:15 p.m.] 4. FORT COLLINS HOTEL - RECOMMENDATION TO DECISION MAKER PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This project proposes to construct a 117,665 square foot, 5-story mixed-use hotel with 162 rooms, a restaurant, two bars, and 3,541 square feet of conference space. Parking is proposed in a surface parking lot containing 106 spaces, located at the corner of Chestnut and Jefferson Streets (363 Jefferson Street). The project was reviewed by the Landmark Preservation Commission at a work session held on June 10, 2015; and at a regular meeting on July 8, 2015. At tonight’s meeting, the applicants are requesting a Recommendation to Decision Maker on the project. APPLICANT: Stu MacMillan, Bohemian Companies Staff Report Ms. McWilliams presented a staff report. Applicant Presentation Lou Bieker with 4240 Architecture in Denver gave the Applicant presentation. He stated that he would be covering new information that the Commission had not heard previously, specifically with regard to the finer details of materials and workmanship. He also noted that his presentation had been revised since the version that was submitted for the agenda packet, and the updated presentation was received into the record. Mr. Bieker used a visual aid board with samples of brick and other materials. Per Mr. Yatabe, the visual aid board itself doesn’t have to be submitted into the record, as long as the information being presented is already included in the packet. Mr. Bieker also noted that there is a photo of the visual aid board in the presentation. City of Fort Collins Page 4 September 9, 2015 He described the four primary building materials used in the project: stone, brick, metal and glass. He discussed the materials in detail, including colors and workmanship. He provided a lengthy explanation of how they developed the pattern for the perforated metal. He talked about compatibility in mass and scale with neighboring properties, and discussed the articulation and animation of the façade from each elevation. The design of the terrace canopy was also reviewed. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion A Member asked about the material to be used for the perforated screen and how it will be made. The Applicant explained that the core material is lightweight aluminum about 5/16” to 3/8” thick. It has a factory baked type of Kynar finish and the pattern would be laser cut. The color is a medium bronze. The screen would be held in place by an aluminum girt system tied into the store front. The Applicant also addressed questions about the various colors used, which are either natural, as in the zinc, or color-matched to their specifications, and where on the building they are used. A Member asked about the depth in the secondary facades, which the Applicant described using the drawings in the packet in his explanations. He also pointed out that the shadowing shown on the Chestnut and Walnut Street elevations that give an idea of the depth. Members inquired about what they were expected to comment on with regard to the modifications to code. Mr. Yatabe referred to Land Use Code 3.4.7, suggesting that they comment on the modifications that are relevant if they fall within their purview. One Member felt that all of the modifications could be relevant, since they impact the overall design and its compatibility with the historic district and adjacent properties. Another Member asked the Applicant what the impact to the overall design would be if the variances are not granted, to which the Applicant said it would be significant. Mr. Yatabe said the Commission needs to consider the application as it stands with the modifications, but without considering the parking structure, which will be a separate application at a later time. The Commission discussed the fact that the Commission had been supportive of the design when it had been presented at a previous meeting, and that the changes since then were positive and addressed concerns the Commission had at that time. The Commission discussed the adjacent historic properties to the project, specifically mentioning the following: 1. The Old Town Fort Collins Historic District, including the Forrester Block and 320 Walnut (Illegal Pete’s) 2. The Armory Building 3. The Mitchell Block (which is not historic, but significant) 4. Several small buildings between the proposed project and Illegal Pete’s which have been determined to be individually eligible, but have not been designated as local landmarks and are not part of the Old Town District. As the Commission deliberated about the findings of fact to support their motion, they specifically discussed the Applicants’ request for modifications to two Standards, relative to the building’s height and setback, noting they were comfortable with the height and relationship to the Mitchell Block. The Members discussed their findings of fact, and then stated them for the record. The project is compatible and respectful to the character of the surrounding historic context for the following reasons: 1. The project design uses traditional proportion and historic modules typical of like adjacent historic buildings. 2. The project uses massing location and appropriate step-backs to mitigate height, relative to the historic context, as well as to the Mitchell Block. City of Fort Collins Page 5 September 9, 2015 3. The building uses historically scaled materials, and colors of materials, that are compatible with adjacent historic properties. 4. The project uses compatible solid to void window pattern, typical of the adjacent historic context. 5. The pedestrian scale of the main floor of the proposed project is compatible with the historic context. Commission Deliberation Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to the decision maker, the Planning and Zoning Board, the approval of the development proposal for the Fort Collins Hotel located at the corner of Chestnut and Walnut Streets, finding that it complies with the Land Use Code 3.4.7. Ms. Zink seconded. Motion passed 8-0. [Timestamp: 7:49 p.m.] 5. 1312 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE, CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This request is for the conceptual and final review of alterations associated with the rehabilitation of this former dwelling to law offices. Alterations to the exterior of Landmark properties are reviewed in two phases, a conceptual review followed by a final review, which may occur at the same or a subsequent meeting. This project has also been review by the State Historic Preservation Office, and has been preliminarily approved for both federal and state tax credits. APPLICANT: J. Brad March, MaOlPh, LLC Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report. Applicant Presentation Mr. March addressed the Commission, but did not give a formal presentation. He explained that they had planned on using a “Patriot Red” shingle, but will likely switch to a “Duration” shingle which is not as red. He stated that the dead street trees have been removed and cleanup of the overgrown landscaping to the north had begun. The Applicant wondered if it’s necessary to replace the street trees, as he thinks the property has a nice street presence without the trees. He is not opposed to replacing them, if recommended. He talked about the balloon construction of the sunroom roof, and also mentioned that it is unlikely they will replace the door that goes to the roof of the sunroom. They are willing to replace the railing if needed. He noted that he was not sure if the railing was historic or not, but it appears to have been added later. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion A Member asked about extension of the porte-cochère, noting that the drawings don’t show it extended. The Applicant explained how it would be extended, noting that there will be a one way entry, and adding that they will place parking in the rear to preserve the front. He further explained that there are safety concerns with the stairway for senior clients. The Applicant mentioned that the existing columns of the porte-cochère will be preserved, but the columns will be moved to a new base, similar to a pergola. He mentioned that the SHPO (State Historic Preservation Office) was concerned about taking out the stairway, and wanted it to be rebuilt. The Applicant explained that the City had also wanted a wrought-iron type fence to demarcate the north and south property lines. Chair Sladek expressed some concern about the historic photos provided without dates. City of Fort Collins Page 6 September 9, 2015 Members inquired as to whether the windows were original. The Applicant stated that the glass in the picture windows is beveled, but that he was not sure if they were original. The multi-light windows crank out to capture the breeze, and the screens are on the interior of the window. There was discussion about when and how the railing on the sunroom roof was installed, and concern was expressed about whether there was enough historic documentation to reconstruct the railing accurately. A couple of Members noted that the railing and awnings should be there, as they contribute to the historic character, and also felt there was enough photographic evidence to recreate them. The Applicant indicated he was willing to replace the railing and awnings as long as the SHPO would support that. Chair Sladek noted that the project has already received preliminary approval from SHPO for State and Federal tax credits, and asked whether the Commission sees anything that is out of line in relation to the standards. One Member voiced concern about the extension of the porte-cochère, since the original proportions are symmetrical with the sunroom on the other side. The Applicant commented that it was a safety issue, and another Member said it seemed like a usability issue for the driveway to be accessible by modern vehicles. There was some discussion about changing the dimensions of the beams, which would also require modifying the stucco. Chair Sladek pointed out that since the project had already been approved as is by SHPO, any changes the Commission recommends may cause the Applicant to have to go back through the approval process. The Applicant said he had already talked with SHPO about the possibly of replacing the railing and the stairs, so he didn’t think that would be a problem. However, they had not discussed the awnings, so he didn’t know about that. There was a discussion about whether or not to replace the trees. The Applicant will replace them if required by the City, but said they may be able to get a minor amendment. The Commission seemed to prefer the idea of not replacing the trees to make the home more visible from the street. Chair Sladek said he would like to see the building remain viewable from College, and would lean toward not replacing the trees. No other Members expressed a preference about the trees. Commission Deliberation Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission waive Conceptual Review of the property at 1312 South College Avenue, the Schlichter/Akin/Smith Property, and move to Final Design Review. Ms. Gensmer seconded. Motion passed 8-0. A Member asked whether the motion should include any language with regard to the awnings, upper railing, and porte-cochère. Mr. Yatabe suggested confirming with everyone if they want to include the replacement of the railing. The Applicant requested that if the Commission wanted the awning replaced that they stipulate that it is subject to state approval. Mr. Yatabe further recommended that any changes the Commission wanted to make should be clearly stated. Several Members agreed that they should encourage the railing to be reconstructed, as well as the awning, if the state approves. Members discussed the extension of the porte-cochère. One Member believed it was a character- defining element that is being altered. Members discussed Secretary of Interior Standard 9, and questioned whether the alteration was significant enough to be detrimental to the building’s eligibility and landmark status. The Commission further discussed the impact to the symmetry of building. Usability was brought up again, and Members discussed whether there were other options for access and parking. Members explored a compromise so that the porte-cochère would not be extended all the way to the property line, for example an extension of 5’ rather than 8’, to make it less noticeable. The Applicant expressed a willingness to explore that possibility, subject to the State and the City’s approval. The Commission discussed whether they should include anything about the trees in the motion, but several members did not think that was necessary. City of Fort Collins Page 7 September 9, 2015 Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the rehabilitation work to the Schlichter/Akin/Smith Property located at 1312 South College Avenue finding that such work meets the criteria of Chapter 14, Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code, and recommending also that the Commission allows the Applicant, in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office, to include the upper railing as depicted in Historic Photo #1 on Plan #A0.0 in the Applicant presentation, and also in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office that the Applicant move the porte-cochère back a minimum of three feet from the north property line. Responding to a question from Chair Sladek, Mr. Yatabe said it was not clear as to what occurs if the State Historic Preservation Office does not approve the railing. The Commission again discussed whether recommending the reconstruction of the railing would require the Applicant to go back through the process with the State, or jeopardize his tax credit. The Commission discussed whether recommending the modification to the porte-cochère would cause the Applicant to have to go through the City Planning process again for approval of the site plan. The Applicant said they may be able to get a minor amendment, which would not be a big deal, but if they can’t, he was concerned over how much this change could delay the project. Mr. Ernest modified his motion as follows: Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the rehabilitation work to the Schlichter/Akin/Smith Property located at 1312 South College Avenue finding that such work meets the criteria of Chapter 14, Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code, and also recommending that the Applicant consult with the State Historic Preservation Office in regard to the reconstruction of the upper railing over the sunroom as depicted in Historic Photo #1, Plan #A0.0, in the Applicant presentation. Ms. Zink Seconded. Motion passed 7-1, with Mr. Lingle dissenting. [Timestamp: 9:06 p.m.]  OTHER BUSINESS None  ADJOURNMENT Chair Sladek adjourned the meeting at 9:06 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by Gretchen Schiager.