Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 01/08/2014Approved by Commission at their February 12, 2014 meeting. LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting 300 Laporte Avenue January 8, 2014 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: The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Chair Sladek with a quorum present. Members present were Maren Bzdek, Meg Dunn, Doug Ernest, Kristin Gensmer, Dave Lingle, Pat Tvede, Alexandra Wallace, and Belinda Zink. Staff present was: Historic Preservation Planners Karen McWilliams and Joshua Weinberg and recorder Angelina Sanchez-Sprague. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the minutes of October 9, 2013. Ms. Bzdek seconded the motion. Motion passed: (9-0). Landmark Preservation Commission minutes of November 20, 2013 were approved by acclamation. Members suggested changes to the December 11, 2013 minutes. Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the minutes of December 11, 2013 as amended. Ms. Tvede seconded the motion. Motion passed: (8- 0-1) with Mr. Lingle abstaining. SUMMARY OF MEETING: The Commission: • Approved October 9, November 20, and December 11, 2013 Minutes • Recommended to Council the Landmark Designation of 139 North McKinley, the Humphrey Property • Approved Conceptual and Final Design Review for Changes to the Dock Platform, Downtown Transit Center/Historic C&S Freight Depot, 136 Laporte Avenue • Approved W.J. “Bud” Frick, W.J. Frick Design Group, and Thomas Tisthammer, Andrew P. Carlson, and Byron McGough of Wattle & Daub Contractors for the Design Assistance Program Consultants List. • Reviewed Updates for: o Proposed Revisions to the Municipal Code and Land Use Code – Phase 2, Historic Preservation Process Improvements Study o Massing, Setback and Height Studies, Old Town Historic District. Landmark Preservation Commission January 8, 2014 - 2 - CONCEPTUAL AND FINAL DESIGN REVIEW: CHANGES TO DOCK, DOWNTOWN TRANSIT CENTER/HISTORIC C&S FREIGHT DEPOT, 136 LAPORTE AVENUE. Josh Weinberg, Historic Preservation Planner; Emma Belmont, Transfort; and Derek Getto, DDA. Mr. Weinberg introduced the item and presented the staff report. This is a request for a bike display on the west facing Downtown Transit Center (DTC) dock. Mr. Getto provided a history of the bike library and the collaborative effort of FCMoves, Transfort and the DDA to move the current Fort Collins Bike Library to the DTC. As part of this effort, a bike display is proposed on the west facing DTC dock. The display is intended to draw attention from alighting MAX and Transfort passengers and from general passersby. Mr. Getto said the dock would be accessed by Transfort or Bike Library staff only, through a secure gate. Mr. Getto showed historic and current photos and a photo simulation of the proposed dock. Changes being proposed are: • A 42” railing to be installed around the bike display area. • The proposed railing is 3/8” diameter stainless steel cable rail with 4” posts every 8’; the posts will match the existing rail posts at the DTC in color and style. This style was selected to limit visual impact to the historic dock structure as much as possible. • The railing is proposed to be anchored in the ground using concrete footings, limiting impact to the historic dock material. • Installation of an access gate between the existing DTC main entrance and the dock. • An existing railing will be replaced with a gate to allow access on and off of the dock. • The gate will match the existing railing and will have a secure locking feature that can only be opened by approved personnel of Transfort or the Bike Library. He said signage, similar to what’s on the site currently, is being proposed and they will work with the city’s sign process for that, returning to the Commission if necessary. Public Input: None Commission Questions/Comments: Mr. Lingle said it appears the extent of the fencing goes down the platform to the north end of the building and then turns back into the corner. Mr. Getto said correct. Mr. Lingle said it would appear that access would be via the handicapped ramp; do they envision a problem with pedestrians? Mr. Getto said they are working to keep the majority of bikes in a rack system to be located south of the transit center, so this would be more of an overflow area. Mr. Lingle said relative to their proposal for replacing boards on the dock, will they be using the same general species? Ms. Belmont said Risk Management requested the boards be replaced and that this area accessible only to staff. Mr. Lingle said his position is as long as the replacement timbers are of the same general species and dimensions that would be Landmark Preservation Commission January 8, 2014 - 3 - acceptable. He also thought the open railing system is appropriate because you can see through it. Ms. Bzdek asked about overnight storage of the bikes. Mr. Getto said they would be locked between the brick columns, creating three separate sections of bicycles. There would be a rod that goes through the bikes and they would be locked together. Ms. Bzdek said she wondered if there would be a scenario in which people might try to see how well the bikes are secured, and might damage the building in the process. Ms. Belmont said they currently have cameras that monitor that area, and hopefully people will notice the cameras and that would act as a deterrent. Ms. Bzdek asked if theft and vandalism had been a problem in the current (Old Town Square) location. Mr. Getto said no. Ms. Wallace asked if there any plans for additional lighting. Mr. Getto said no. The commission discussed the smaller size of the replacement board and whether the board should be weathered. Standard 6 outlines texture and color characteristics but is open for interpretation. Standard 6 does note ‘where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials.’ Some thought it could be similar without being exact and because it’s a single board and not the entire platform it is minor relative to Standard 9 (exterior alterations). Mr. Getto said they will try and match it to the best of their ability. Ms. Bzdek asked how the gate will be attached to the brick. Ms. Belmont said the railing currently exists and the attachment is in place. Ms. Dunn asked about the fencing on the north end of the dock. Mr. Getto said they propose a flat metal piece that would attached to the mortar joints. He said it could be removed so the cable could go to that piece on the building. Mr. Sladek asked, if someone were to try and climb the unit and place their weight on those cables, would it have the potential to loosen that plate and damage the brick work. Mr. Getto said they’d have to make sure it was not engineered in a fashion where damage could be caused. Ms. Dunn said it appears there are two posts on the northwest corner of the building that go through the dock. Mr. Getto said while the rendering shows that, only one post would be there. He said they should be able to span that distance (8’ on center – the width of the dock). Mr. Sladek asked if it could be bolted into the dock floor. Ms. Dunn asked if a center post would take some of the pressure off the brick. Mr. Sladek said he thought it would. Ms. Zink said she could support drilling a hole in the wood decking. She believes it would be better to shorten the span and lighten the load. In an industrial setting, if you need to drill a hole to make it work, it likely would have been done in the ‘old days’. Mr. Sladek suggested setting a post rather than attaching the railing to the building. Mr. Lingle said if you used posts it would be more easily reversed. The posts could come down, sit on the plate, and the plate bolted to the timber platform. He said it might be less intrusive than cutting holes. Sladek agreed especially if that was in lieu of attaching to the brickwork. Landmark Preservation Commission January 8, 2014 - 4 - Mr. Sladek confirmed that this that might be the commission’s preference. Mr. Getto said they would be open to their ideas. Mr. Sladek asked for any comments on the signage. Mr. Getto said their intent is to use minimal anchorage to the building. Any design would be submitted through the city’s sign process. Ms. McWilliams said signage could be approved administratively if the Commission is good with that. Ms. Wallace said she really appreciates how the proposal maintains that congruency of transportation. She thought it was a very innovative incorporation of that idea to maintain at the transit center. Mr. Sladek said he heard the commission is fine with the wire cable railing; the primary posts along the front will be mounted in the ground. The posts on the return side (northwest corner of building) would be mounted on the platform (with no attachment to the actual brickwork) and that signage we can be taken care of administratively by staff with the understanding that the commission’s preference is to have minimal impact to the brickwork. Commission Deliberation: Mr. Ernest said he was prepared to make a motion and wondered if the Commission wanted the motion with conditions. Mr. Sladek said there’s been a clear discussion of some straightforward issues in which final details could be handled administratively. Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the Conceptual and Final Design Review for the Downtown Transit Center/Historic C&S Freight Depot, 136 Laporte Avenue, Dock Platform finding that it meets the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. Ms. Bzdek seconded the motion. Motion passed: (9-0). DESIGN ASSISTANCE PROGRAM –APPROVAL OF APPLICANTS FOR CONSULTANTS LIST. Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner Ms. McWilliams said the Design Assistance Program aims to help property owners minimize the impacts of additions, alterations, and new construction on neighbors and on the overall character of Fort Collins historic neighborhoods. The program pays for up to $2000 per property per year, for consultation, mortar analysis, and design, construction and engineering services. Properties that qualify for assistance include Fort Collins Landmarks and adjacent properties, as well as those properties located in the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods. She said owners choose from a list of consultants with proven experience in contextually compatible historic design, approved by the Landmark Preservation Commission. Design Assistance consultants apply to the City of Fort Collins to be part of the Landmark Preservation Commission January 8, 2014 - 5 - program. Consultants on the list need to demonstrate competency in promoting design compatibility within the existing historic context. Consultants meeting the criteria, as determined by the Landmark Preservation Commission, are placed on a list that is provided to the public. She said the approval criteria are listed in the staff reports. The following applications are being considered tonight:  W.J. “Bud” Frick, W.J. Frick Design Group  Thomas A. Tisthammer, Wattle & Daub Contractors  Andrew P. Carlson, Wattle & Daub Contractors  Byron R. McGough, Wattle & Daub Contractors Public Input: None Commission Questions/Comments: Mr. Sladek asked if there were any question or comments related to Mr. Frick’s application, noting that he was a former LPC member who had served for several terms. There were none. Mr. Sladek said his impressions are that Mr. Frick’s qualifications are outstanding as far the Design Assistance Program goes. He’s participated in many design assistance meetings in the past. He thinks he’s eminently qualified to be approved for the list. Ms. Bzdek said she reviewed the criteria and there are none he does not meet. Ms. Tvede moved that the LPC find that W.J. Frick of Design Group meets the criteria established by the Commission for the Design Assistance Program for consultants under items 1 and 2. Examples of 1, compliance with Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Buildings, are included in the specifics of 2, professional qualifications. A specific example is 214 Walnut Street, the Silver Grill. Ms. Gensmer seconded the motion. Motion passed: (9-0). Mr. Sladek asked if there were any questions or comments related to Wattle and Daub Contractors staff members Thomas Tisthammer, Andrew Carlson, or Byron McGough. Ms. Tvede said she has the impression that all three consistently work together. Mr. McGough agreed and said they work as a team. Ms. Tvede asked Mr. Sladek if they could be considered as individuals with one motion. Mr. Sladek said he does not see why not as long as everyone is comfortable with the qualifications of all three. Mr. Lingle said he’s personally worked with Mr. Carlson and Mr. McGough and he’s familiar with Mr. Tisthammer’s work. He thinks they are all equally qualified and should be approved for the program. Mr. Ernest said he’s familiar with Mr. Tisthammer and Mr. McGough through work on the Water Works Stabilization Project. Landmark Preservation Commission January 8, 2014 - 6 - Mr. Sladek said all the projects they presented in their application are prominent, important projects in our area and the commission is likely familiar with all of them. Ms. Tvede moved that the LPC find that Thomas A. Tisthammer, Andrew P. Carlson, and Byron R. McGough of Wattle and Daub Contractors, all of whom work as an integrated team, meet the criteria established by the Commission for the Design Assistance Program for consultants under items 1 and 2. Examples of 1, compliance with Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Buildings, are included in the specifics of 2, professional qualifications. A specific example is the Avery Building exterior and restoration. Mr. Lingle seconded the motion. Motion passed: (9-0). Mr. McGough said he’d like to extend appreciation for the opportunities they have in Fort Collins to work on historic structures. Not many communities have the resources and the focus to do it according to the Standards. He said given the opportunity, they love working with city projects. He said outside of city projects, they have the guidance of the LPC and it’s a win/win situation. He said they feel fortunate to be a part of that. Mr. Lingle wanted to point out page 62 of the agenda in which the chicken coop and barn are a good example of what was discussed about the Dock Platform regarding Standard 6– the mixture of old and new materials in rehabilitation. It’s all consistent in material but it’s clear what’s new and what’s original. DISCUSSION: PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE AND LAND USE CODE – PHASE 2, HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS STUDY – Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner The purpose of this item is to inform the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) of the results of this two-phase study, and to seek the Commission’s comments on proposed code changes to the Municipal and Land Use Codes. Staff will then return to the Commission at a later date for a formal recommendation. Phase 1 of this review resulted in two changes to the Municipal Code, adopted in August 2012: • An appeal process for determinations of eligibility, and for the determination of the effect of proposed work on this eligibility; and • Added more specificity to LPC member requirements, ensuring compliance with Certified Local Government (CLG) standards. Phase 2 has involved a more comprehensive look at the Historic Preservation Program, including a comparison of historic preservation best practices, an on-line survey of property owners and their neighbors who had gone through a Demolition/Alteration Review, and a blue-ribbon panel representing major stakeholders who served as a Citizens Review Committee. Based upon Council’s Landmark Preservation Commission January 8, 2014 - 7 - direction, staff is working with the City Attorney’s Office to draft the code language to implement these changes. Council action is set for April 1, 2014. PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE: Municipal Code revisions and improvements are contained in Chapter 2, “Administration,” and in Chapter 14, “Landmark Preservation.” Changes include: • A re-organization of Chapter 14, so that the steps of each process are better grouped and occur in sequential order; • The addition of explanations for clarity and understanding and references to the corresponding criteria and standards of the Secretary of the Interior, National Park Service; • The inclusion of a building’s context as a consideration in determining eligibility; and making determinations valid for five years rather than the current one year; • Adding a requirement that a minimum of three citizens must sign an application for a non-consensual landmark designation. More changes include changes to existing procedures to expedite the review process: • Add the ability for the Community Development and Neighborhood Services (CDNS) Director to be able to approve minor building alterations and signage on landmark properties administratively; • Add the ability for the LPC Design Review Subcommittee to be able to provide a recommendation to the CDNS Director on buildings undergoing Historic Review. Currently, the Subcommittee may review plans and provide suggestions to the applicant. However, even if plans that are acceptable to all parties are identified, the application is still forwarded to the full LPC for action. This change would enable the Subcommittee, if there is unanimous agreement of review criteria, to provide a recommendation for approval to the CDNS Director who could then approve the plans administratively. Ms. McWilliams said in the context of determining eligibility, the changes will increase predictability for affected parties. PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE LAND USE CODE: Land Use Code changes are contained in Section 3.4.7, “Historic and Cultural Resources”: • Add the ability for the LPC to review those development projects affecting individually eligible and designated historic properties, and provide a recommendation to the decision maker (typically the Hearing Officer or the Planning and Zoning Board) on the project’s effects on historic properties. This action would provide important evidence on projects that are subject to both historic preservation and development code requirements; and would comply with federal Certified Local Government requirements, which recognizes the LPC as the City’s qualified historic review board. This change would require a corresponding revision to the LPC duties in Municipal Code Section 2-278, “Functions.” Landmark Preservation Commission January 8, 2014 - 8 - • Make changes to 3.4.7(F), “New Construction,” to better clarify adjacent properties to be considered when evaluating the compatibility of new structures. This is especially important when a project involves irregular shaped parcels or other land that has not been platted in a standard grid pattern. Ms. McWilliams said staff will be going to the Planning and Zoning Board on February 13, 2014. At their work session in January, she said the Planning and Zoning Board members generally supported the proposed changes. She said public outreach continues, with an Open House on January 28 and upcoming meetings with the Board of Realtors and the other groups. City Council’s First Reading is set for April 1, 2014. Public Input: None Commission Feedback: Ms. Dunn said for the record she’s attended a public meeting and participated in a survey. Ms. Dunn asked about the reference to ‘three people’ mentioned in Ms. McWilliams presentation but was not in the agenda packet materials. Ms. McWilliams said that was a suggestion made at the Planning and Zoning Board at their work session. She said these draft codes are constantly being revised so there will be more changes before staff returns with a final version on which a formal recommendation will be requested. Ms. Bzdek said to reiterate, the Planning & Zoning Board suggestion are not currently on the handouts – we’ll be seeing those later. Ms. Bzdek asked where the number three came from. Ms. McWilliams said a majority of project participants thought it should require more than 1 person to make application for landmark designation, when that person is not the owner. Ms. McWilliams said there could be a case when a neighbor who is fighting with the affected property owner might use this in a punitive fashion. “Three unrelated” was suggested at the Planning and Zoning Board work session, as there is already precedence for this in the Land Use Code, with definitions. Ms. Bzdek asked if staff had seen analogs for best practices. McWilliams said it’s mixed. Many communities require more than one person to sign for a non-consensual designation; a few do not. Staff recommends at least three signatures before the start of consideration for landmark designation; she feels that this would be an enhancement to the current program. Mr. Ernest said the code currently states applications can come from the property owner, the LPC, or from a citizen. This past year when a citizen who was not the property owner proposed designation, it did create issues. Mr. Ernest thinks, however, we always want to have a citizen-at-large option. He thinks having three is a step in the right direction. He thinks adding the word unrelated is a good idea. Mr. Lingle said the three unrelated code section is completely different in terms of occupancy of a property. He’s not sure that saying three in this instance is the correct number. Landmark Preservation Commission January 8, 2014 - 9 - Ms. Gensmer said she thought it should include unrelated and of separate households. She said we can still have three unrelated people living in the same household who could potentially ‘gang up’ (for lack of a better term) on their neighbor. Mr. Ernest said in general there are a lot of good things that have happened with these proposed code changes. He’s wondering about intent relative to making the determination of eligibility for five years rather than the current one year. He’s wondering what impact it will have on staff and on the LPC. Ms. McWilliams said this is something that came out of the Citizen Advisory Committee. The message heard consistently was the need for predictability. She said the current one year eligibility might lapse in the middle of a project because many projects take more than one year. She said by expanding the eligibility period, it gives everyone (developer and neighborhood) more predictability. Mr. Ernest said with regard to the Design Review Subcommittee change, is that the subcommittee that normally includes the CDNS Director and the Chair or is it the committee that does complimentary reviews? Ms. McWilliams said it’s the latter – the LPC subcommittee made up of commission members whose purpose is to provide complimentary design review. Mr. Ernest said because the membership floats, all commission members have an opportunity to participate. He said it may need to be a little bit more formalized than what it’s been in the past. Mr. Ernest said he noticed that sometimes ‘decision maker’ is capitalized and in other cases it’s not. He’d like to see some consistency—does it imply a formality? Is there a formal definition someplace? Ms. McWilliams said the decision maker is defined in the Land Use Code. Mr. Ernest thinks it’s a good idea and wondered if Ms. McWilliams had any idea of how many projects would be affected. Ms. McWilliams said they are trying to quantify that. The estimate is that the Commission may be reviewing one or two projects per month. She said the vast majority of projects affecting historic buildings have no major issues that would require commission involvement. She said should the commission identify a project they’d want to review, it certainly could come to the commission for their review. Ms. McWilliams said staff intends to improve linkages so that the commission will be apprised of the projects being considered. She stressed that the LPC’s comments were only a recommendation and not binding on the decision maker. Mr. Lingle asked how the threshold of ‘minor” building alterations would be determined. Ms. McWilliams said minor will be projects that affect no more than one aspect of integrity. Mr. Sladek said it concerns him that minor is linked to one aspect of integrity; for instance, relocation could have a major impact to a property. Ms. McWilliams said that’s a good point in that they’ve taken out references to relocation in the code because relocation itself is a near impossibility in Fort Collins, and the code covers it under demolition of all or a portion of the property. She said in reference to Mr. Sladek’s example, there would be many other processes they’d have to go through, including demolition/alteration review and building or development permitting. Mr. Sladek said he just wants to be careful that we are not opening the door by setting up the code to claim only one aspect of integrity is being impacted. Ms. McWilliams suggested that staff look into this and it be further discussed at the next work session. Mr. Sladek agreed. Landmark Preservation Commission January 8, 2014 - 10 - Mr. Sladek asked if the term “minor” (building alterations) is defined elsewhere either geographically or in some other setting from which we could learn. He said maybe other than aspects of integrity, it could be tied to some other measure in an analogous way. Mr. Sladek said in the environmental field they use the term ‘de minimis’ impacts as a way of measuring small impacts. Is that something we can adapt to what we are trying to achieve? Mr. Ernest said he thinks relocation might be a last option in some situations and he would not like to see its total elimination. He used as an example the last remaining ‘beet shack’. He said we need to have a procedure that addresses something like that. Ms. Bzdek said with the addition of the concept of context (Page 77 of the agenda packet) and its application (in terms of the scarcity or profusion of a particular structural type) that might potentially be a place to consider special consideration. She interprets that as overall context in the community in terms of the community’s overall resources. Ms. Bzdek said that brings her to a second question about context – she wondered where the definition comes from and she’s wondering if it is detailed enough? Ms. McWilliams said it comes out of one of the bulletins published by the National Park Service and that it was modified slightly to fit our purpose. Ms. Bzdek said she’d like to consider the possibility of adding some modifiers to it to make its intent more clear. She asked what does the “sum of the existing buildings and spaces” in the context of preservation mean. What kinds of qualities are being measured? Mr. Lingle said he’d like more time to consider the removal of relocation. Mr. Ernest agreed. Mr. Ernest asked about the new section (page 89 of the agenda packet) on Resolution Hearings. Ms. McWilliams said that this is code language that currently exists, but has been relocated to a different area of the code because of the reorganization of materials. Ms. Bzdek commended staff on their work. Mr. Sladek said it looks like we’ll have a little more time for further discussion. Prior to City Council’s April 1, 2014 First Reading, the Commission will be asked to make a formal recommendation. DISCUSSION: MASSING, SETBACK AND HEIGHT STUDIES, OLD TOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT – Josh Weinberg, Historic Preservation Planner Mr. Weinberg said the objective of this project is to create updated Fort Collins Old Town Historic District design standards and guidelines to guide property owners, staff, and the LPC’s in reviewing alterations, additions, and new construction within the District. Staff is requesting the Commission’s review of a supplemental document that includes potential massing, setback, and height scenarios for building additions on various lot configurations within the historic district. Staff is asking if it should be Landmark Preservation Commission January 8, 2014 - 11 - included as an appendix to the final design standards/guidelines for the Old Town Historic District. Mr. Weinberg reviewed Old Town new mid-block addition scenario graphics. Mr. Sladek said the graphics are showing different perspectives but they aren’t making any commentary on what is or is not preferable. Mr. Weinberg said, rather than the consultants’ opinions, it is up to the commission to determine which scenarios, if any, should be added. Ms. Tvede asked if the graphics included in the document mean they are acceptable choices and if that decision had to be made tonight. Mr. Weinberg said no, these are just studies showing different massing. The commission does not need to decide tonight Ms. Dunn asked if the zoning in Old Town allowed 4 stories Mr. Weinberg said four or five stories are allowed in the downtown. He said the Mitchell Building is one of the tallest in Old Town and it abuts the district. Mr. Lingle said if we can decide what is or is not appropriate in the guidelines; it would be a valuable addition. He said a developer would need the same kind of graphic as staff or the commission to understand what the concepts being discussed really mean. He said seeing it graphically helps. Mr. Lingle said from his perspective, if we could take one half an hour in a work session at the end of this month to dive into this a little more it would be helpful. Ms. Tvede wondered if maybe it would be better for the applicant to present their ideas without this guidance, so that there is not an implied approval of a certain height. Ms. Bzdek said in reviewing the draft guidelines for building mass, scale, and height, she’s thinking the guidelines have been drafted with a preference, for example, for setbacks. She said when we’re thinking about how we want to present this (good examples versus bad examples), don’t we need to be consistent with what’s currently in the draft and how to best illustrate that. Mr. Weinberg agreed. He said setbacks are a standard in the preservation field. To meet the Secretary of the Interior Standards, you want to differentiate the old from the new, and maintain the street level view. Mr. Weinberg said the one story character of so many of the buildings is one of the character defining features of this district. Mr. Lingle said looking at page 126 of the agenda packet (the corner block scenario), he thinks there would be a difference between whether it’s a contributing building or not. If it was not contributing, he doesn’t know if we want to impose setbacks. An option for that owner is to demolish and to build new. Mr. Lingle said he thinks the commission needs to talk through all those things. Mr. Weinberg agreed. Landmark Preservation Commission January 8, 2014 - 12 - Ms. McWilliams suggested rather than stories, we should consider using measurements, and gave as an example the shorter stories on the four-story Northern Hotel building which is far lower than a typical four-story building today. Mr. Weinberg noted the document addresses the importance of maintaining the historic height and alignment of the building levels. Mr. Sladek said the commission will be revisiting this topic at the next work session. LANDMARK DESIGNATION: 139 N. MCKINLEY, THE HUMPHREY PROPERTY -- Curt and Debbie Clausen, Owners; Josh Weinberg Historic Preservation Planner. Mr. Weinberg reviewed photographs of the property and said the Humphrey Property is significant under Landmark Designation Standard 3, as an excellent example of one-story Craftsman style residence. Ms. Dunn said she walked past the property this past week. Mr. Ernest said he drove by. He said looking at the list of landmarks; he noticed that the properties at 140 N. McKinley (across the street) as well as two or three others in that area are landmarks. He asked if this is an area that might lend itself to landmark designation if enough of the property owners in that area are interested. Mr. Weinberg said there is a potential for district designation in that area. Ms. Dunn said she knows two property owners in that area that may be interested. What is the process for district designation? Ms. McWilliams said typically it’s a movement by the neighborhood. She said the area proposed would be defined by the neighbors – it could be ½ block, a full block, or three blocks. The neighbors would do the research and bring forward a nomination. Staff takes the nomination and starts the process of bringing it to the LPC. A part of that process is to do extensive neighborhood outreach so all neighbors are well informed. Mr. Ernest said it’s a grassroots effort -- it comes from interested parties in the neighborhood who talk extensively with their neighbors. Mr. Sladek said the better time to do that is before there’s a threat to the neighborhood. Mr. Sladek said with reference to the chronology on the application (page 29 of the agenda packet) there were some overlap in dates. For example, it said the Humphreys lived there from 1929 to 1959 but in the next paragraph it states others lived there from 1955 to 2007. Mr. Sladek suggest this property is also eligible under Standard 2 because its association with Dr. Humphrey. He read into the record information about Dr. Humphrey from Touching Lives, a History of Medicine in Fort Collins. Mr. Sladek asked that information be added to the document. He said he would strongly argue in favor of adding Standard 2. Ms. Bzdek agreed, as did Mr. Ernest. Ms. Tvede moved that the LPC recommend that City Council pass an ordinance designating the Humphrey Property at 139 N. McKinley as a Fort Collins Landmark according to City Code Chapter 14 under designation Standard 2 and 3 and that the nomination includes biographical information about Dr. Humphrey. Ms. Gensmer seconded the motion. Motion passed: (9-0). Landmark Preservation Commission January 8, 2014 - 13 - Mr. Sladek thanked Mr. Weinberg for his work. OTHER BUSINESS: Mr. Ernest said he had several copies of an excellent article on the use of architectural renderings in real estate from the New York Times. He had passed copies out to the commission last summer and he had copies now for the new members. Mr. Sladek welcomed new members Meg Dunn and Kristin Gensmer. He said the commission looks forward to working with them. He asked them to share information on their background and their interest in the LPC. Ms. Gensmer said she is an archeologist. She has an undergraduate and graduate degree from CSU. As an undergraduate she minored in history. She said she really likes Fort Collins and enjoys the historic character of the town. Serving on the LPC fits well with her interest and her profession. Ms. Dunn said she got interested in preservation when the Whitcomb District was under discussion and before the historic house was demolished. She lives two blocks from there and learned a lot about the process then. She said Ordinance 33 and the Eastside/Westside discussion got her involved with her neighbor in “Protect Our Old Town Homes.” She said joining LPC seemed like a natural move. Mr. Sladek adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by Angelina Sanchez-Sprague