Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 12/09/2015City of Fort Collins Page 1 December 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 The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. Regular Meeting December 9, 2015 Minutes • CALL TO ORDER Chair Sladek called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. • ROLL CALL PRESENT: Dunn, Zink, Gensmer, Lingle, Ernest, Sladek ABSENT: Wallace (excused), Hogestad (planned to join the meeting late) STAFF: McWilliams, Bzdek, Dorn, Yatabe, Schiager • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. • CONSENT AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 18, 2015 REGULAR MEETING. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the November 18, 2015 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. 2. 404 WHEDBEE STREET – FORT COLLINS LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF THE MICHAUD PROPERTY Landmark Preservation Commission Approved by Commission at their January 13, 2016 meeting. City of Fort Collins Page 2 December 9, 2015 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Staff is pleased to present for your consideration the Michaud Property located at 404 Whedbee Street. The property meets the standards for significance as a Fort Collins Landmark under Standard C (Design/Construction). APPLICANT: Mark and Denise McFann 517 E. Magnolia Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 Ms. Gensmer noted that she would abstain from voting on the consent agenda as she was not present for the previous discussion about 404 Whedbee Street. Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission accept the consent agenda as presented. Ms. Dunn seconded. The motion passed 5-0, with Gensmer abstaining. [Timestamp: 5:40 p.m.] • DISCUSSION AGENDA 3. 903 STOVER STREET – FINAL DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a Final Design Review of a proposed addition to 903 Stover Street, a Fort Collins Landmark (Ordinance No. 039, 1996), constructed in 1905. The proposed addition will include a new second floor addition (168 square feet), a new first floor addition (266 square feet), and the demolition of an outbuilding. APPLICANT: Kurt Reschenburg and Tia Molander 903 Stover Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 Staff Report Ms. Dorn presented the staff report. She noted that contrary to the information in the staff report and presentation, the shed would not be demolished. Chair Sladek asked for confirmation that the shed would not be demolished. The Applicant, Mr. Reschenburg, confirmed that the shed will stay and no outbuilding will be demolished. Applicant Presentation Mr. Anderson, the Architect on the project, gave the Applicant presentation. He explained that after last month’s review, they have replaced hip roof that was part of the original design with a shed-type roof that does not exceed the height of the ridgeline of the main house. The fireplace will remain as is. The trapezoidal windows previously in the design were changed to rectangular. Ms. Molander introduced herself and offered to answer any questions. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion Mr. Lingle complimented the owner and Architect on the compromises they made to the design to alleviate the Commission’s concerns, and said he fully supports the new design. Ms. Gensmer agreed with Mr. Lingle. She also noted that potential archeological finds were not addressed in the treatment plan, and recommended the Applicant have a permitted official evaluate any unanticipated discoveries. Mr. Lingle made a suggestion regarding staff reports. He said that if a project had previously come to the Commission, it would be helpful to include that information in the background section of the staff report along with a summary of the Commission’s comments and an analysis of whether/how they met the Commission’s requests. Chair Sladek and Mr. Ernest agreed. Chair Sladek said he did not see anything in this design as presented that violates the intent or specifics of Section 14.48 of the Municipal Code or the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation, and that he will support the application. City of Fort Collins Page 3 December 9, 2015 Commission Deliberation Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the plans and specifications for the rear addition to the Charles A. Lory house located at 903 Stover Street, as presented, finding that such work would meet the criteria established in Chapter 14.48(b) of the Municipal Code. Ms. Dunn seconded. The motion passed 6-0. [Timestamp: 5:59 p.m.] 4. 215 MATHEWS OFFICE BUILDING—REQUEST FOR FINAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This project is for a three-story office building of 8,550 square feet on a 7,000 square foot infill site immediately across Mathews Street from the Fort Collins Community Creative Center (Carnegie Library). Approximately 3,800 square feet of the new facility is expected to be occupied by Cline Williams Wright Johnson & Oldfather, LLP Attorneys at Law. The site is zoned Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer District (NCB). The property is located adjacent to the Laurel School National Register District and to individually designated Landmark properties, so the proposed project is subject to compliance with the standards in Land Use Code Section 3.4.7, Historic and Cultural Resources. APPLICANT: Greg Fisher, 3115 Clyde Street, Fort Collins, CO Ms. Gensmer recused herself, having been absent for the discussion when the project previously came before the Commission. Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report. Applicant Presentation Mr. Fisher gave the Applicant presentation on behalf of the owners, Tracy and Brad Oldemeyer. He explained the changes they had made in order to address the Commission’s previous concerns. (NOTE: The Applicant presentation had been changed since the version submitted for the agenda packet. The updated version has been entered into the record.) Public Input None Determination of Adjacencies The Commission started by discussing the adjacencies to the project. A Member mentioned that in the future, it would be helpful to have images of the properties that are listed as possible adjacencies, particularly those that are designated or eligible. Staff agreed, noting that they may have to use file photos or Google Street View images, which the Commission agreed would be acceptable. The Members briefly discussed the information about adjacencies included in the staff report, agreeing to include the designated and eligible properties specified as follows: 1. 200 Mathews (designated) 2. 148 Remington (designated) 3. 202 Remington (designated) 4. 220 Remington (designated) 5. 221 Mathews (individually eligible) 6. 210 E. Oak Street (individually eligible) 7. 215 E. Oak Street (individually eligible) 8. 218 Remington Street (individually eligible) 9. 230 Remington Street (individually eligible) City of Fort Collins Page 4 December 9, 2015 Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission accept as the adjacencies for the 215 Mathews Office Building an area of ½ block in each direction from the block upon which the building is proposed, including specifically those properties that are individually designated or individually eligible, under LUC 5.1.2. Ms. Dunn seconded. The motion passed 5-0. Commission Questions and Discussion Mr. Lingle asked the Applicant about the extent to which the Commission had asked them to change their design in ways that were not ideal for their needs. Mr. Fisher said that having an 8’ ceiling, rather than the standard 9’, puts them at a disadvantage for leasing. Also, running the duct work in the attic of the trusses is a more expensive approach, as well as being harder to maintain and more difficult to provide efficient distribution. He commented that the Fire Department also had an issue with the height, so those changes weren’t just made to address the Commission’s concerns. Mr. Lingle said that he appreciated the Applicant’s incorporation of the Commission’s recommendations into the design. He went on to say that the Commission sometimes offers suggestions that don’t always produce a better project, noting the window patterns in this design as an example. He expressed a concern that by imposing certain conditions on projects, the Commission may be forcing substandard building stock that will not be viable, marketable and sustainable long term, ultimately shortening the lifespan of the buildings. He said he supports the project, but doesn’t support some of the design changes the Commission asked them to make. Mr. Fisher commented that he appreciated and agreed with that viewpoint, but he also said that he and his client are pleased with the overall height and design of the building, including the window patterns and alignment. Chair Sladek also expressed appreciation for the comments and input. Ms. McWilliams pointed out that the requirements imposed by the Commission, such as the alignment of windows and soldier coursing, are all specifically addressed in Land Use Code 3.4.7. There was discussion about whether the requirements in the code were reasonable expectations based on new building standards and a suggestion was made that perhaps the code needs to be updated in that regard. Chair Sladek read 3.4.7(f) in order to establish that the recommendations previously made by the Commission were code-based and not arbitrary, and suggested discussing this issue further at the Commission retreat in January. Ms. Dunn said the changes that were made to this design made it much more compatible with the surrounding buildings, honoring the “to the maximum extent feasible” requirement. She went on to say that the new entranceway speaks to its neighbors, as do the color changes. Chair Sladek agreed with Ms. Dunn’s comments, and noted that the window pattern in the stairway added visual interest, making it look modern, but with a historic flair. He thanked the Applicant for the tremendous amount of work they invested in the design. Mr. Ernest he had compared the previous design to this one, and reviewed the applicable sections of the Land Use Code and the staff comments, and was prepared to vote positively on this project. Ms. Zink agreed that it was a great project. Commission Deliberation Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to the decision maker approval of the 215 Mathews Office Building development proposal as presented at the December 9, 2015 meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission, finding that the proposed building complies with the code requirements in Section 3.4.7 of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code and based upon adoption of the findings of fact set forth in the staff report. Mr. Lingle seconded. The motion passed 5-0. [Timestamp: 6:42 p.m.] Ms. Gensmer rejoined the Commission. 5. 320 MAPLE MIXED USE PROJECT—CONCEPTUAL REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This proposed development at the northeast corner of Maple and Meldrum involves construction of a 4-story, 41,674 square-foot multi-family attached building with 29 residential units. The site is located within the (D) Downtown Zone District and currently contains three connected commercial buildings and City of Fort Collins Page 5 December 9, 2015 one residential building that would be demolished to make way for the site redevelopment. APPLICANT: Craig Russell, Russell + Mills Studios, 131 S. College Avenue, Fort Collins Mr. Lingle recused himself from this item due to a conflict of interest. Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report. Applicant Presentation Ian Shuff, alm2s Architect, gave the Applicant presentation. Public Input None Determination of Adjacencies The Commission discussed the adjacencies to the project, which are listed in the staff report as follows: 1. Four properties containing a total of eleven contributing buildings have been identified in a pending landmark nomination application that would establish the Collamer-Malaby Historic District. These include 303 N. Meldrum, 305 N. Meldrum, 313 N. Meldrum, and 315 N. Meldrum. This district is immediately west of the proposed development. 2. Several other buildings along Meldrum were reviewed for individual eligibility for landmark designation in 2004 and 2012. Those determinations occurred prior to April 2014 and would need to be reviewed again, so their status is offered here for review only. The residences at 312 N. Meldrum (1910) and 322 N. Meldrum (1921) were determined to be individually eligible for landmark designation. The residences at 316, 317, 320, and 321 N. Meldrum were deemed not individually eligible. 3. The Dutch Colonial Revival residence at 329 N. Meldrum (1900) has not been reviewed for individual eligibility. Ms. Dunn asked why the Hattie McDaniel House was not mentioned. Ms. Bzdek said that only the properties on Meldrum were considered. Chair Sladek pointed out that the Hattie McDaniel House is almost a block away and faces to the north, noting that it is designated, but not adjacent. Mr. Ernest asked whether boundaries of an adjacent area need to be established, or if the Commission can just accept the specific adjacent properties listed in the staff report. Members indicated they were comfortable with adopting the Staff recommendations. Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission accept as the area of adjacency for the 320 Maple Mixed Use Project, the adjacency of properties as it appears in the staff report. Ms. Gensmer seconded. Mr. Yatabe noted that since there were a number of properties listed in the staff report, some having been found not to be individually eligible, the motion should probably be more specific. Mr. Ernest amended his motion to specify those properties identified in the area of adjacency identified in the staff report as a pending landmark nomination for the Collamer-Malaby Historic District, and eligible historic designations. Ms. Gensmer seconded. The motion passed 5-0. City of Fort Collins Page 6 December 9, 2015 Commission Questions and Discussion Ms. Dunn said that the massing and scale was very sensitive to the surrounding buildings, and the false front was a nice nod to the Malaby store. She asked about the materials, particularly stucco, in relation to a nearby stucco house. The Applicant explained that all the light colored areas in the design are stucco. Ms. Dunn also inquired about heavy use of brick, particularly on the small end piece next to the house, given that the other residential buildings along that street are wood. The Applicant said they could look into some other materials for that part of the building. Chair Sladek said while he likes the look of the small piece in brick, as far as a transition, it is too abrupt. He also said the massing and scale looked great, but that they would probably like to see an alternative to brick on the small part. Ms. Gensmer stated that she appreciated the fenestration, and the transition of the fenestration. The windows in the bridge piece, while looking modern, were a nod to the residences, while the design then transitions to the larger clearly modern windows. She commented that the design was in character with the existing historic structures as per Land Use Code 3.4.7(F)(2). The Applicant said the design was still evolving and that some of the larger windows would likely be broken down. Chair Sladek said the Commission would like to see more details with dimensions the next time they review the project. Mr. Ernest commented that the stepdown effect to the north helps to meet the requirements in the Land Use Code, General Standard B, with regard to compatibility of height, scale and mass. Ms. Dunn would like to see the design with an actual image of the house at 312 Meldrum next to the building when they review the project again. The Applicant commented that having the adjacencies defined up front is very helpful in order to understand what resources they should try to acknowledge in their designs. Chair Sladek asked if there was anything the Commission hadn’t answered for the Applicant. Mr. Shuff responded that with this being a key transitional building for this block, he wants to make sure they do it right. Mr. Ernest asked about feedback from neighbors. The Applicant said about eight neighbors came to the neighborhood meeting, including key people such as the neighbor to the north and the market owner and the feedback was positive. Chair Sladek summed up the comments saying that they were on a good track. [Timestamp: 7:31 p.m.] Mr. Lingle rejoined the meeting. Mr. Hogestad arrived in time to join the Commission for the last item. 6. DISCUSSION OF THE LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION'S 2016 WORK PLAN Agenda Item Description Each year the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) prepares for Council a Work Plan for the coming year. For 2016, Council has asked that the Work Plans be more closely aligned with its Strategic Plan and Outcome Areas. In addition to the LPC’s 2015 Work Plan, the 2015-2016 Strategic Plan is included in the packet, as is the recent LPC response prepared for Council’s Boards and Commission Periodic Review. To create its 2016 Work Plan, Commission members should identify ongoing and new goals and objectives that support those of Council. Based upon the 2015 Work Plan, staff has entered preliminary information into the draft work plan, using the Strategic Plan as the format. The areas of highest alignment were identified in the Periodic Review as Community & Neighborhood Livability, and Economic Heath Outcome Areas. Additionally, the LPC may find it has good alignment with Environmental Health. Staff Report Ms. McWilliams presented the staff report. City of Fort Collins Page 7 December 9, 2015 Commission Questions and Discussion Chair Sladek led the discussion, reviewing his own suggested updates to the Commission’s work plan for each section, and gathering input from the other Members. [NOTE: Chair Sladek provided his updates in writing to Staff, and this document has been added to the record.] 1.2. Change "several aging neighborhoods" to "a growing number of historic neighborhoods that enhance the city's distinctive character, sense of place, and quality of life." Also, add Circle Drive to the areas that are priorities for survey. 1.3 Add an item to work on additional code changes to address concerns brought to light during recent project discussions. Encourage people to make use the Design Review Program. 1.4 There was a discussion as to whether the Commission had any review authority with regard to the protection of historic resources within open space lands that are City-owned, but outside the city limits. Mr. Yatabe explained that unless there were an IGA granting that authority, the City is treated like any other property owner in unincorporated areas of the county. Chair Sladek asked Staff to find out whether the Commission could have a courtesy review in these cases, or if they could at least be updated on projects involving historic and archaeological resources on City-owned open spaces so that it can provide comment. 1.5 In the first sentence of the first bullet point, change to "history and the historic built environment", not just history. 1.6 Health and wellness are promoted by maintaining the human scale and walkability of the historic neighborhoods and downtown commercial core. These are important to both individual physical and mental health, and to the collective health of the community. The historic core acts as a venue for the community to engage in healthy interactions of all kinds. Adding informational pavers for historic tours would increase walkability. 1.7 Adaptation of the Northern Hotel into a place where seniors can find affordable housing is a good example of how historic preservation came together with other agencies to meet a community need. The preservation program is available to engage in future projects of this type where historic buildings might be involved. There was also discussion of whether the zero-interest loan program would fit into this category, as it helps people stay in their homes if they can’t afford proper upkeep. 1.8 There was discussion about the need to continue this effort to partner with emerging informational outlets, perhaps also using Facebook and Twitter to announce new landmark designations. 1.11 There was discussion about whether graffiti removal was a continuing issue, and it was decided to leave that in the work plan. Add a bullet point about thoughtful regulation of the design of infill projects, which is probably the LPC's most important contribution to this category. 1.12 Add an action item for preservation planning staff and the LPC to work with applicants and neighbors to help them understand code issues, and to address their concerns about, or support for, planned changes to individual properties. This contributes to fostering positive neighborhood relationships and open communication. 3.1 In the last bullet point, rather than just mentioning Old Town Square, broaden that to include the entire historic commercial district. 3.8 Add bullet item at the top of the list to state: Preservation of large portions of the city's historic downtown core, older residential neighborhoods, and individually important sites has contributed heavily to the community's strong sense of place. Without these successes, combined with ongoing efforts to ensure they are not swept away, the city's sense of place would be damaged and largely absent. There was a question about the status of the pattern book referenced in 3.8 and 3.7. Ms. McWilliams explained that the pattern book was part of the Old Town Neighborhoods Plan and Downtown Plan that are in currently in progress, and that the draft would be brought to the Commission soon for review, and then will proceed to Council in the spring. The statistics should be updated from 2013 to 2015 numbers. City of Fort Collins Page 8 December 9, 2015 3.9 Add an item to continue to engage in identifying code changes that will make the preservation process more transparent, predictable and efficient. The statistics should be updated from 2013 to 2015 numbers. 4.6 Add an item to educate people about readapting, rehabilitating and reusing historic resources as a way of recycling. Members asked about meeting with the City’s Sustainability Committee to discuss these issues, or with Rosemarie Russo, a Senior Environmental Planner with the City. Ms. McWilliams also mentioned that Ms. Bzdek serves on the National Council of Public History’s Sustainability Committee, and has information on how historic preservation can promote sustainability. There was also discussion about adding an action item for the Commission and Staff to advocate and educate on behalf of preservation to steer green building initiatives toward a preservation effort. 4.11 Add an item to encourage the public to maintain historic buildings, in terms of keeping them standing and in good repair, which contributes to reducing the amount of construction waste sent to the landfill. 2.3 Continue the effort to translate forms into Spanish. 2.4 Update from 2015 to 2016 7.1 Add the annual LPC retreat, sending members to the NAPC conference every other year, and a possible opportunity to attend a local NAPC training with Boulder & Greeley. Mr. Ernest thanked Chair Sladek for his work on reviewing the work plan and making suggestions. Chair Sladek thanked Staff for their efforts on the work plan. [Timestamp: 8:19 p.m.] • OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Ernest thanked Staff for their work on the motions, findings of fact and areas of adjacency in the staff reports. Ms. McWilliams said Council is interviewing Landmark Preservation Commission applicants, and will be making their decisions public soon. Chair Sladek reported on a party at the Bellevue Grange celebrating a “Friends of Preservation Award”. • ADJOURNMENT Chair Sladek adjourned the meeting at 8:20 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by Gretchen Schiager.