Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 10/26/2016City of Fort Collins Page 1 October 26, 2016 Doug Ernest, Acting Chair City Council Chambers Meg Dunn City Hall West Bud Frick 300 Laporte Avenue Kristin Gensmer Fort Collins, Colorado Per Hogestad Dave Lingle Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 and Alexandra Wallace 881 (HD) on the Comcast cable system Belinda Zink The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. Regular Meeting October 26, 2016 Minutes • CALL TO ORDER Acting Chair Ernest called the meeting to order at 5:33 p.m. • ROLL CALL PRESENT: Dunn, Zink, Hogestad, Gensmer, Lingle, Ernest, Frick ABSENT: Wallace STAFF: McWilliams, Bzdek, Bumgarner, Yatabe, Schiager • AGENDA REVIEW Ms. McWilliams informed the Commission that the Nix Farms item was on the agenda as a Conceptual/Final Review, but as they have not yet submitted an application, it will only be a Conceptual Review. • STAFF REPORTS None. Landmark Preservation Commission City of Fort Collins Page 2 October 26, 2016 • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. • DISCUSSION AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 28, 2016 REGULAR MEETING. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the September 28, 2016 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. Mr. Hogestad and Mr. Lingle recused themselves, having not been present for the September 28, 2016 meeting. Mr. Frick moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the Minutes of the September 28, 2016 regular meeting as presented. Ms. Zink seconded. The motion passed 5:0. [Timestamp: 5:39 p.m.] 2. 113 SOUTH WHITCOMB STREET - CONCEPTUAL AND FINAL DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicants are seeking conceptual and final design review approval of an addition to their home at 113 South Whitcomb Street. The house is designated as a Fort Collins Landmark as a contributing element of the Whitcomb Street Historic District. The property is significant to the district for its history; it was determined at the time of designation that the property did not qualify for architectural significance due to previous alterations. APPLICANT: Catherine and Dylan Rogers, 113 South Whitcomb Street, Fort Collins, CO 80521 Staff Report Ms. McWilliams presented the staff report noting the property is part of the Whitcomb Street Fort Collins Landmark District. The home has been significantly altered previously, most notably in 1994 with the addition of a full second story. The proposal is to remove the existing garage and add a two- story garage with living space on the north side of the house. Ms. McWilliams reviewed slides of the property and surrounding area. Applicant Presentation Ms. Rogers gave a presentation, providing additional details about the proposed project. She stated neighbors have been in support of the proposal. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion Ms. McWilliams added that the property was not designated based on its architecture, and explained the Commission’s purview is to consider not the impact of the addition on this house, but rather its impact on the architecture, history and significance of the district as a whole. Chair Ernest pointed out the standards to be used for this application in the staff report. He explained the procedural aspects of this item. Ms. Dunn asked about the setback on the north side. Ms. Rogers replied there is a considerable setback and noted the addition would not change the footage on the north side at all. Ms. Dunn asked about the setback on the east. Ms. Rogers replied the garage was moving forward slightly. Mr. Lingle asked about a variance being required for the rear setback encroachment. Ms. Rogers replied she has discussed that issue with Noah Beals who has indicated the LPC is the first step in the process. City of Fort Collins Page 3 October 26, 2016 Mr. Lingle asked whether the addition is going to the side rather than the rear due to the positioning of the rear lot line. Ms. Rogers confirmed that was correct. Mr. Lingle asked about the review criteria, particularly the reference to “developmental significance”. Ms. McWilliams replied staff intended that phrase to relate to the broad patterns of development in Fort Collins as the criteria under which this area was designated. The question is whether or not this home can still convey its sense of history and feeling of being part of the district with the addition. Mr. Frick asked if there is a basement planned for under the garage. Ms. Rogers replied in the affirmative stating the plan is to excavate under the garage to create storage space. Chair Ernest discussed the formation of the district and noted this home was not found to be architecturally eligible because of its addition. He stated he does not believe this new addition will detract from the historic standards put in place for the district when it was established in 2013. He went on to elaborate on some of the historic details of the property contributing to its significance. Ms. Zink commented that she would like to see some differentiation between the old and new sections of the house, perhaps with color scheme. Mr. Frick made a suggestion to remove the gable end over the garage and half round window in order to allow the house to be more prominent and the addition to recede. Motion to move to final review Finding no significant adverse effect on the designated property or landmark district, and with all necessary information in place, Mr. Lingle moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission waive conceptual review and move to final review of the proposed work at 113 South Whitcomb Street. Ms. Gensmer seconded. The motion passed 7:0. Mr. Lingle stated he agrees with the six findings in the staff report, adding that the shape and depth of the property results in a physical hardship that is contributing to the applicant’s need to locate the addition to the side of the house as opposed to the rear, as they would typically expect to see. Ms. Zink and Chair Ernest agreed with Mr. Lingle and with the recommendations in the staff report. Mr. Hogestad noted the balcony above the garage creates essentially a three-story building in a predominantly single-story neighborhood. He asked if there has been any negative feedback from neighbors. Ms. Rogers replied that all the comments from the neighbors have been positive, and stated a significant amount of vegetation exists around the addition. Ms. Dunn stated the balcony, or patio, would have a significant impact on the house behind it if it were a designated property. Ms. Rogers stated she has talked with neighbors to the rear and next door and no concerns have been raised. Mr. Hogestad emphasized his concern about the relationship of this property to the other single-story homes. Chair Ernest recalled the extensive amount of participation during the district designation and noted there have been no comments regarding this addition to this point. Ms. McWilliams noted there is no posting notice for a designated property; however, the Commission’s agenda is posted as per Code requirements. Ms. Dunn would like to discuss the posting requirements at another time. Motion to Approve Mr. Lingle moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission provide a report of acceptability for the proposed work on the property located at 113 South Whitcomb Street, finding that it meets the criteria of Chapter 14, Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code, “Approval of Proposed Work,” for the reasons stated by staff in on Page 3 of the staff report under item number two. Ms. Dunn seconded. Ms. Zink asked if Mr. Lingle wanted to add his comment about hardship to the motion. Mr. Lingle replied in the affirmative and added the following statement to his motion: “and acknowledging the physical hardship created by the shape and the depth of the lot in its influence on the location and bulk and mass of the addition.” City of Fort Collins Page 4 October 26, 2016 Ms. Dunn stated she did not wish to second the motion with that inclusion, adding that hardship isn’t usually considered by the Commission. Mr. Lingle explained that the shape and depth of the lot are what allow him to support the proposed location of the addition. Mr. Yatabe stated there is not necessarily an issue of hardship, but rather the effect of the potential changes on the district. He noted Ms. Dunn could withdraw her second. Ms. Dunn renewed her second. Ms. Zink made a friendly amendment to change the word hardship to circumstance. Mr. Lingle and Ms. Dunn accepted the friendly amendment. Chair Ernest requested each Commission member add a comment as to the reason or reasons for his or her vote. Mr. Frick supported the motion given the six bullet points outlined by staff. Mr. Hogestad expressed concern regarding the third story component, but stated he would grudgingly support the motion. Ms. Gensmer supported the motion based on the six findings they’ve discussed. Mr. Lingle supported the motion and stated he would agree with Mr. Hogestad’s concerns if the proposal included a roof structure or trellis, but since it is an open deck, he will support it. Ms. Dunn agreed with Mr. Lingle’s comments. Mr. Hogestad stated the deck is still an imposition on a single-story neighborhood. Ms. Zink supported the motion based on the previously stated reasons. Chair Ernest supported the motion stating the proposal is in compliance with the standards in Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code. The motion passed 7:0. [Timestamp: 6:26 p.m.] – RECORDING 51:30 3. POUDRE GARAGE - CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a proposed addition to 148 Remington Street, a Fort Collins Landmark (Ordinance No. 134, 1997), constructed in 1937. The project is a four-story addition with a setback above the third story. The addition would add approximately 8,900 square feet to the 4,224 square-foot original structure, resulting in a total building area of 13,130 square feet. The mixed use project would include six residential units totaling 5,600 square feet, office/restaurant/retail area totaling 4,700 square feet, a common interior area of 1,450 square feet, and an eight-space parking area of 1,400 square feet. APPLICANT: Jason Kersley, [au]workshop, llc Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report and noted the Poudre Garage is a Fort Collins Landmark which was constructed in 1937 by the Civilian Conservation Corps. The building was designated in 1997 for its architectural and historical significance. The key alterations on the building to date include replacement of the wood garage doors, a series of changes to the south wing, and changes to window bays. The proposed alteration will involve the following: removing the infill windows from the garage door openings and installing new bronze garage doors, repainting the existing windows bronze, restoring the original corner openings, and adding a freestanding, 4-story, 8,900 square foot addition to the rear which will be composed primarily of light colored cement panels and will be set back above the third story. The Commission has reviewed this item on several occasions and staff City of Fort Collins Page 5 October 26, 2016 findings of fact regarding the application as it now stands is that the proposal meets the criteria defined in Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code. The applicant has provided the necessary plan of protection which considers both the garage itself and the immediately abutting historic properties. The applicant has also addressed the conditions placed on the Basic Development Review approval from July. Applicant Presentation Arlo Schuman, [au]workshop, presented a condensed version of the packet materials specifically pointing out changes made since the previous presentation before the Commission. Public Input None. Commission Questions and Discussion Mr. Hogestad asked about the additional setback of the accent panels and whether that is the only place the pilasters are revealed. Mr. Schuman explained the top of the tower is comprised of a ceramic or porcelain tile that has the same color as the cement panels, but they have a sheen to them. Mr. Hogestad asked about the rainscreen cladding. Mr. Schuman replied it is truly a rainscreen system with abutting panels. The fiber cement returns back to the building at the jams, and at the head there is matching break metal sill piece for the window and a drip edge. The necessary gap for the rainscreen is being closed as much as possible. Mr. Hogestad asked about parapet coping. Mr. Schuman replied there is a minimal parapet coping. There is a required ¾ inch gap at the top that is more like a shadow line reveal. Mr. Hogestad said the rainscreen changes the appearance of the building, but Mr. Schuman pointed out that it had always been part of the design. Mr. Hogestad said the details were important. Mr. Frick asked about the reason for the 18 inch increase in the tower height. Mr. Schuman replied the DDA requested the tower height increase and it does seem to improve the proportion. Additionally, there is a functional aspect which allows the HVAC to be tucked away with more headroom. Mr. Lingle asked about the exploratory demolition. Mr. Schuman replied the conditions placed by the Commission at its BDR approval were found to be possible. Mr. Lingle also clarified the treatment of the corner panels with the applicant. Chair Ernest noted the findings of fact in the staff report regarding the plan of protection, accent panels and corner treatments. Motion to move to final review Finding no significant adverse effect on the designated property and with all necessary information in place, Mr. Lingle moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission waive additional conceptual review and move to Final Review of the proposed work at 148 Remington Street. Ms. Zink seconded. Mr. Hogestad stated he does not believe the Commission has all the necessary information as it should have received additional details on the rainscreen. Mr. Frick agreed with Mr. Hogestad and suggested having those details submitted to staff for later review. Chair Ernest requested clarification on how a condition might be handled. Mr. Yatabe noted the Code does not specifically provide for approval with conditions; however, it is not likely detrimental to the process should the Commission include it as part of the motion to approve the project. He suggested the Commission may consider remaining in conceptual review to gather necessary information. He also clarified that if the Commission does move forward, such a condition would be part of the motion to approve, rather than the motion to move to final review. The motion passed 7:0. City of Fort Collins Page 6 October 26, 2016 Mr. Lingle suggested that any condition placed on the motion to approve should be very specific. Mr. Hogestad requested additional detail regarding the rainscreen panel spacing and dimensions. Mr. Frick requested additional detail regarding the corner junctions and top cap. Chair Ernest suggested the possibility of placing a condition on the report of acceptability. Mr. Yatabe noted the Commission needs to be very specific should it request staff do some type of review. He added that it is problematic to ask certain Commission members to meet with staff outside of a regular meeting. Mr. Hogestad clarified his concern relating to the wall cladding materials stating he would like to see typical rainscreen details for this system, including head, sill, corner, parapet, etc. Mr. Schuman stated all gaps are a maximum of 3/8” and any larger gaps would be covered with a trim piece, another piece of fiber cement, or a break metal piece that closes the gap. Mr. Hogestad said that information might be sufficient as it is now part of the record. Mr. Frick inquired again about having a Commission member review the details. Mr. Yatabe suggested the Commission set a maximum tolerance to remove discretion on the part of staff. Mr. Hogestad agreed with that assessment. Motion to Approve Ms. Dunn moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission provide a report of acceptability for the proposed work at 148 Remington Street, finding that it meets the following criteria of Chapter 14, Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code, “Approval of Proposed Work” for the reasons stated by staff in the staff report with the condition that joints between rainscreen panels be no wider than 3/8” with the exception of the top and bottom of the panels. Ms. Gensmer seconded. Ms. Dunn commented there was too much irrelevant information included in the packet, which made it difficult to sort through and find what they need. Ms. Gensmer commended the level of detail in the plan of protection. Mr. Lingle agreed with Ms. Gensmer, particularly with regard to the foundation details. Chair Ernest agreed the plan of protection provided necessary detail and stated he would support the motion finding the proposal meets necessary Code provisions. Ms. Zink stated she will support the motion as the applicant addressed the three items requested by the Commission. Ms. Dunn, Mr. Lingle and Ms. Gensmer agreed with Ms. Zink. Mr. Hogestad stated the details are important and stated he would support the motion. Mr. Frick agreed with Mr. Hogestad. The motion passed 7:0. [Timestamp: 7:09 p.m.] City of Fort Collins Page 7 October 26, 2016 4. NIX FARM – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is seeking a conceptual/final design review for alterations to the designated Nix Farm property, which will consist of a proposed 1,200 square-foot expansion of the existing maintenance shop and the construction of a new 5,000 square-foot vehicle/storage garage and an outdoor fleet parking area. APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins Mr. Lingle recused himself from the discussion of this item due to a conflict of interest. Staff Report Ms. Bzdek emphasized again that this will only be a conceptual review as the applicant has not yet submitted a complete application. She presented the staff report stating Nix Farm is a local landmark designated in 2001 based on the architecture and history of the site. She discussed the updates and alterations made to date. The proposed alterations are related to a major amendment proposal to expand the facilities west toward the entry to the property and south toward the railroad right-of-way. The alterations include adding an additional 1,200 square feet on the west side of the new maintenance shop, construction of a 5,000-square foot vehicle storage garage, and an outdoor fleet parking area. The State Historic Preservation Office has provided written approval of the addition to the maintenance shop and the new vehicle storage building within the existing maintenance yard. The initial findings of fact from staff evaluation are that the proposed additions are generally compatible in terms of massing, style and materials with what is currently on the site, allow the historic character of the property to be retained, are placed sensitively on the site relative to the location of the historic buildings, and the new buildings are appropriately differentiated from the historic buildings. Applicant Presentation Karen Manci, Senior Environmental Planner with Natural Areas, discussed the growth of the Natural Areas department and need for alterations stating the plans keep the vista open from the road and Poudre bike trail. Steve Steinbicker, Architecture West, presented the plans for the design. Public Input None. Commission Questions and Discussion Chair Ernest commented on the aerial images noting the viewshed appears to be protected. Mr. Hogestad complemented the work as being exactly what it should be. Ms. Dunn complemented the building placement. Mr. Frick disagreed with the shed building not being gable end. While he understands the net zero goal, the shed would be more appropriate if it fit in with other buildings on the site. Mr. Steinbicker replied the shed attempts to replicate some of the character of the existing loafing sheds and it is not intended to be a predominant building which is why the roof pitch was lowered. Mr. Frick stated the loafing shed is far from the new shed and stated it should have a roof similarly shaped to the other buildings. Mr. Steinbicker replied the shed’s design is an appropriate solution given energy goals. Ms. Gensmer commended the positioning of the new buildings on the site stating it maintains the historical aspect of the area’s agricultural history. Chair Ernest stated there are no red flags with the design to this point. Mr. Steinbicker appreciated suggestions and requested any thoughts the Commission may have regarding future development. (**Secretary’s Note: The Commission took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.) Mr. Lingle rejoined the Commission. [Timestamp: 7:50 p.m.] City of Fort Collins Page 8 October 26, 2016 5. JEFFERSON AND LINDEN RESTAURANT (PDP160030) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a proposed design for a restaurant at the northwest corner of Jefferson Street and Linden Street. The building consists of a single story building of 5,690 square feet with a patio dining space on the east end of the building facing Linden Street. The building will share parking with Rodizio in the lot to the west. The development site is within the Old Town Fort Collins National Register Historic District as well as the River District. Final review will be a Type 1 hearing with a hearing officer. APPLICANT: Chris Aronson, Vaught Frye Larson Architects Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report stating the site of the proposed restaurant is within the Old Town Fort Collins National Register Historic District. The proposed restaurant is a single-story 5,690 square foot building which includes a patio dining space and shared parking with the Rodizio restaurant to the west. A proposed, though not yet accepted, area of adjacency includes the Old Town National Register Historic District with attention given to the Jefferson Block buildings directly across the street to the south. Findings of fact on the proposal as presented include the following: the setback, height, size and massing are generally compatible with both the neighboring Union Pacific depot and the area of adjacency as a whole, the visual connections include references to the triplet window patterning on Jefferson Block to the south, the even ridge heights that tie to the Union Pacific building to the west, and the proposed restaurant includes a primary entrance facing Jefferson Street. The primary building material of the key buildings in the area of adjacency is brick; the proposed design incorporates prominently placed brick accents and does not impede existing visual and pedestrian connections within the historic district. The Commission’s role is to provide a written recommendation to the decision maker for the development proposal based on its compliance with Land Use Code section 3.4.7 which requires new construction to respect the historic character of the surrounding historic properties on or adjacent to the development site. Ms. Gensmer recused herself from the discussion of this item as she was not present for the September 14th review and has not reviewed the recording. Ms. Zink disclosed that she too was not present on September 14th; however, she has reviewed the recording and is prepared to participate. Applicant Presentation Ryan Houdek introduced himself as owner of this property, in addition to the Melting Pot, Rodizio and Social. Chris Aronson, Vaught Frye Larson Architects, gave a presentation highlighting the changes made since his last appearance. He provided a few additional views of the site as well as their research on the Tedman House. He discussed the use of brise soleil and the introduction brick elements and a pre-cast cap into the design of the site walls. The west elevation has been altered slightly from what was presented in the packet. Public Input None. Commission Questions and Discussion Ms. Bzdek confirmed the findings of fact in the staff report still stand based on what was shown by the applicant. Chair Ernest suggested establishing the area of adjacency. Mr. Lingle requested additional information regarding the new west elevation. Mr. Aronson replied the exposed frame comes out ten feet from the triple vine cages which allows for the staff entry and utility room to be inside the overhang. Mr. Lingle asked if the tall doorway on Jefferson leads from the public walkway to the staff entry. Mr. Aronson replied in the affirmative. City of Fort Collins Page 9 October 26, 2016 Mr. Lingle requested information on the thought process as to the suspended brick elements. Mr. Aronson replied they went through a design charrette to look at that detail. The brick would not go all the way to the ground and there is about two feet from the face of the building to the face of the brick. The brick is not a structural item and is more of a screen. Chair Ernest pointed out that this review falls under Land Use Code Section 3.4.7. Motion to Establish Area of Adjacency Ms. Dunn moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission adopt as the area of adjacency for the proposed application at the northern corner of the intersection of Jefferson and Linden Streets the following properties: the Old Town National Register Historic District properties comprising the Jefferson Block; the Union Pacific Depot at 200 Jefferson Street; the Union Pacific Freight Depot at 350 Linden Street; and the Feeders Supply building at 259 Linden Street. Ms. Zink seconded. The motion passed 6:0. Mr. Ernest pointed out relevant sections of the staff report. Ms. Dunn discussed Land Use Code Section 3.4.7(f)(2) which addresses the pattern of the primary building entrance facing the street being maintained to the maximum extent feasible. She stated she would like to see a more prominent main entry on Jefferson as the building currently looks like the front is on Linden. Mr. Aronson stated the west side entrance for staff is an opening with a setback door. Landscaping, the sidewalk, and signage will create a sense of entrance. Ms. Dunn stated all of the adjacent buildings have a main door in the center of the building and stated there is no strong front entrance on this plan. Mr. Aronson replied pedestrians crossing at the intersection will interact first with the front door. Additionally, the front door placement is a function of the interior floor plan, allowing an immediate choice of patio or inside seating. Ms. Dunn asked if there is a gap between the building and the brick wall. Mr. Aronson replied there is a gap of brick but there is a steel railing. Mr. Hogestad agreed the organization of a building would call for an entry to be prominent and centered. He expressed concern the position of the entrance breaks the rules of building organization from a preservation standpoint. Ms. Dunn stated the location of the entrance does not feel like it fits this part of the Code. Mr. Frick asked if a different brick shape more similar to the Union Pacific building would be helpful. Ms. Dunn replied the brick wrap around is a good start; however, there needs to be something more. Mr. Aronson agreed and stated a larger canopy is not possible given site size constraints. Ms. Dunn suggested pointing the brick at the front door. Mr. Houdek stated he would place the vestibule on the outside if possible; however, site constraints make that impossible. He discussed making the door obvious through lighting, signage, or brick color. Mr. Aronson stated the brick will be backlit to draw people to the entrance, but added that they will keep this point in mind. Chair Ernest also emphasized that the LUC does require that the entrance be prominent. Mr. Hogestad commented on the brick not meeting grade and the fact that the brick on historic buildings goes to grade and is solid; therefore, this brick element is not creating a relationship with the historic buildings, nor is it furthering the preservation cause. Regarding the roof slope, the 3/12 clearly identifies the building as being premanufactured, as does the rigid frame. Mr. Aronson replied the roof slope was studied, however comments were made that the roof was too visible from the streetscape. Increasing the slope, shrinking the slope, or making the roof asymmetrical all seemed to make the roof look less compatible. He also explained their choice of tapered columns rather than City of Fort Collins Page 10 October 26, 2016 straight was a more elegant, slimmer look. In terms of the brick, Mr. Aronson stated it was light and airy, but not load bearing like historic brick. Mr. Hogestad said he liked the brick as a design element, but not for the purpose of trying to relate to the historic buildings. He also strongly disagreed that the rigid frame was an elegant look and stated the tapered columns are not appropriate for the historic context. Mr. Lingle stated Code Section 3.4.7(f)(3) states the dominant material of such existing structures adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the proposed structure shall be used as the primary material for new construction. Therefore, based on the Code, it would seem the building should be primarily brick with metal accents. Ms. Dunn agreed with Mr. Lingle and stated that while she understands the use of glass along Linden, it is not the primary material in neighboring historic buildings. Mr. Houdek stated there are a number of use restrictions on this site and its best proper use is high- end retail or restaurant. He talked about the risk of blight at this location. He discussed the use of glass in the single-story structures across the street and discussed the need for this building to be a transition to the River District. Mr. Aronson noted City Planner Clark Mapes has supported the project and its effort to combine the River District guidelines with the Old Town District. Chair Ernest noted the Commission’s purview involves the Code and the relation of the project to the Old Town District. Mr. Lingle stated many of the applicant’s comments are appropriate for the Hearing Officer as opposed to the Commission, which is responsible for reviewing the historic compatibility elements. He stated he cannot get past the Code Section 3.4.7(f)(3) requirement for building materials. Mr. Houdek argued that brick is the primary material, if the wall structure and panels are considered. Mr. Lingle disagreed. Ms. Dunn stated the brick fence does not count in terms of building material and suggested the applicant could do the math in terms of building materials on adjacent buildings. Mr. Aronson asserted that the metal panel on the Jefferson side has less mass than the brick. Mr. Hogestad stated the building form is sheet metal rather than brick and there is no formula that states 51% of a brick applique constitutes a brick building. Ms. Dunn stated there is no brick at all on the Linden elevation. Mr. Aronson replied the Linden side is primarily glass and steel; however, the building should be taken as a whole rather than in parts. He stated Old Town is enlivened by a mix of materials. Chair Ernest asked about the process and possible appeal options for the applicant. Mr. Yatabe replied these types of recommendation decisions under Section 3.4.7 are not appealable. Ms. Bzdek mentioned rounds of conceptual review can continue as long as the applicant is willing to do so, or the Commission could move forward with a recommendation per the applicant’s request. She reminded the Commission to address impacts of elements on the integrity and significance of the area of adjacency within the district, based on the purpose described in Section 3.4.7 (A). Mr. Lingle requested additional clarification on the purpose section, to which Mr. Yatabe responded that the purpose section does not set out a particular binding standard, but is more an overall guidance as to how the Commission would or would not apply the other specific sections. Mr. Hogestad asked if the design team would be willing to consider the Commission’s comments. Mr. Houdek replied he will not build a brick building and stated delays are increasing costs. He stated the process is worthwhile; however, it is burdensome and subjective. The project is on the verge of failure given many more delays. Mr. Houdek stated he is willing to turn the tapered columns into square columns; however, he does not feel that is relevant. He stated his belief that the entrance will City of Fort Collins Page 11 October 26, 2016 look like an entrance to the public. He stated he wants the project to move forward with the approval of the Commission; however, he cannot turn the building into full brick. Ms. Zink stated the building not being brick is not particularly important as the other side of Jefferson is a mixed up, “jazzy” experience. She suggested extending the rhythm of the wall as it moves toward Linden. She stated one cannot state this diminishes the value, culture and art of the historic district and noted it is an infill project. Ms. Dunn agreed the project needs a rhythm and stated she does not believe it maintains the pattern of a primary building entrance required by Code Section 3.4.7(f)(2), or that the dominant building material of the nearby historic structures is the dominant material in this building as required in Code Section 3.4.7(f)(3). Mr. Lingle stated the language of Section 3.4.7 is more prescriptive than subjective and this project does not meet the standard of (f)(3). Mr. Hogestad agreed the Code is clear regarding the dominant building material. He stated he would like to see the design team re-examine the plans and make moves which could get the Commission and the team closer to an agreement. Mr. Frick complemented the building design, but stated it is on the wrong site given the lack of compliance with Section 3.4.7. Chair Ernest agreed with other Commission members, stating he would like to be able to approve the project, but cannot ignore the prescriptive sections of the Code, particularly (f)(3). Mr. Houdek asked whether a vote this evening, assuming it were a denial, would be the last word from the Commission and whether the might be able to come back to the Commission with a revised plan down the road. Mr. Yatabe explained that the Applicant can agree to come back again, or if they want a decision this evening, this would be their one opportunity for a recommendation from the Commission. Mr. Houdek stated he would like to hear specific changes to their design that would be necessary for the Commission’s approval in order to determine the loss they would incur to make those changes. Mr. Lingle said the Commission’s role is not to design the project, and Ms. Dunn explained that they have already provided their specific comments about how the project does not meet the Code. Mr. Aronson requested clarification of the definition of dominant material. Ms. Dunn read Code Section 3.4.7(f)(3), noting that it is only the materials used on the buildings in the area of adjacency that are relevant, and also pointing out that it states a variety of materials may be appropriate but shall maintain the existing distribution of materials in the same block. Mr. Hogestad stated Section (f)(3) is quite clear and wondered if the Commission would consider something other than a complete brick building. Ms. Dunn commented that the brick screen was an interesting idea, and she didn’t think the Commission was saying to build a brick building. Mr. Hogestad stated there may be other solutions besides adding additional brick screen and it is not necessary that the building be entirely brick. Ms. Dunn noted the Commission is not asking for a faux historic building. She used an analogy of the visual relationship between family members, and would like to see that kind of relationship between buildings reflected in the design, so it is clear the buildings are in the same family.