Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 04/27/2016City of Fort Collins Page 1 April 27, 2016 Ron Sladek, Chair Doug Ernest, Vice 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 City Cable Channel 880 Alexandra Wallace on the Comcast cable system in HD 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 April 27, 2016 Minutes • CALL TO ORDER Chair Sladek called the meeting to order at 5:33 p.m. • ROLL CALL PRESENT: Dunn, Zink, Hogestad, Gensmer, Lingle, Ernest, Frick, Sladek ABSENT: Wallace (excused) STAFF: McWilliams, Bzdek, Dorn, Yatabe, Schiager, Shepard • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. • DISCUSSION AGENDA [Timestamp: 5:34 p.m.] 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE April 16, 2016 REGULAR MEETING. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the April 13, 2016 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. Landmark Preservation Commission Approved by the Commission at their May 11, 2016 meeting. City of Fort Collins Page 2 April 27, 2016 Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the minutes of the April 13, 2016 regular meeting. Ms. Gensmer seconded. Motion passed 8-0. 2. RIVER DISTRICT BLOCK 8 MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT (OLD ELK DISTILLERY–PDP140016) - REQUEST FOR RECOMMENDATION TO DECISION MAKER PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The River District Block 8 Mixed-Use Development is located on 1.2 acres at 360 Linden Street on the southwest corner of Linden Street and Willow Street. The property is located in the core of the River Downtown Redevelopment (R-D-R) Zone District; the portion of the site facing Linden is within the Old Town National Register Historic District. The proposed mixed use development includes a distillery production facility (33,448 square feet) along Willow Street that is 51 foot tall at the main roof with a 68 foot tall building tower. The mixed use building (9,900 square feet) at the Linden and Willow intersection includes a retail space (2,180 square feet), pub (1,800 square feet), and shared restrooms (600 square feet) at level 1 with office space (4,460 square feet) at level 2 and a total building height of 37 feet tall. The project also includes distillery equipment on the east side, including a 95-foot tall water tower composed of a 31,000 to 40,000 tank supported by tapered legs. APPLICANT: Brandon Grebe, Blue Ocean, Inc. Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report. Applicant Presentation Mr. Grebe addressed the Commission briefly, and introduced Eduardo Illanes from Oz Architecture to give the Applicant Presentation. Mr. Illanes discussed the reduction of the water tower height to 95’, while maintaining the same capacity. He pointed out that the engineering justification of the height is included in the packet. He reviewed the models of the proposed building in its context. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion Mr. Frick asked about the mechanical equipment on top of the building from the South Elevation shown on packet page 26. Mr. Illanes clarified the location of the mechanical equipment structure. Mr. Frick also referred to the pictures of the view from Jefferson Street on packet page 37, and suggested there should be brick on the upper part of the metal building to break up the gray. Chair Sladek asked whether a color change instead of a materials change would make a difference. Mr. Frick thought a brick-colored metal siding would help break up the material. Mr. Hogestad said the Land Use Code (LUC) is clear about using materials similar to the existing historic buildings, and he doesn’t see that this amount of metal meets that requirement. He suggested a middle ground, pointing out that the primary material should be brick, but it could be a combination of brick and metal. Mr. Hogestad said that was a very large, primary elevation. Mr. Illanes said they have met the requirements in the guidelines. Mr. Hogestad asserted that Section 3.4.7 of the LUC is the standard, not the River District Design Guidelines. Mr. Lingle said the guidelines were also important, not just the Code. He pointed out that there were all kinds of materials in the area, and he believes the design meets the requirements. Mr. Hogestad disagreed, emphasizing that the four-sided building deserved the same attention on each side. Ms. Zink asked what a composite metal panel was, and Mr. Illanes explained it’s not corrugated per se, it is insulated. Ms. Zink pointed out that the buildings included in the area of adjacency adopted for the project are masonry buildings. She said she understands Mr. Hogestad’s position, but doesn’t agree that the entire south elevation needed to be brick. She said the metal ties in with the industrial nature of the building. City of Fort Collins Page 3 April 27, 2016 Ms. McWilliams read from Section 4.17 of the LUC, which contained more information about the Downtown and River District contexts. Mr. Yatabe noted that the LUC refers to the River District Design Guidelines, and suggested that if they feel the LUC and guidelines are not in agreement, they should attempt to harmonize 3.4.7 and the guidelines. He went on to say that the guidelines are incorporated into the LUC. Mr. Ernest pointed out that on packet page 15, the review criteria in the staff report refers to both 3.4.7 and the R-D-R (River District Redevelopment) Zone District Design Standards and Guidelines. He noted that this an industrial use which is encouraged on page 6 of the RDR. He said there is a lot of metal in the photos used on pages 25 & 26 of the RDR, and that page 58 states that architectural metals are appropriate. He thought the materials were appropriate and meet both 3.4.7 and the guidelines. Ms. Dunn said the metal didn’t bother her, using Ranchway Feeds as an example of the use of metal in the area, particularly the cloverleaf silos. She also questioned why they hadn’t included the Quonset huts in the area of adjacency. They discussed the era of the structures and felt they were old enough to have been included. Ms. McWilliams said some of the Quonset huts along Riverside were eligible and some were not. Ms. Dunn likes that the water tower is lower and thinks the metal is appropriate with the metal of the Quonset huts in the area and Ranchway Feeds. Mr. Lingle appreciated the reduced height of the water tower and said it looks much better. Chair Sladek agreed that the proportions of the water tower are appropriate now, and appreciated the engineering analysis and rationale for the height. Mr. Ernest agreed, adding that he had researched historic water towers and this does have a historic feel and look to it. He also said that the proportionality was improved with the water tower itself and the entire site. Chair Sladek noted that they are not pushing Applicants to replicate historic structures, but in this case the historic looking water tower was the Applicant’s own design choice. Mr. Hogestad again brought up the metal on the south elevation. At his request, Ms. McWilliams re- read a relevant portion of LUC Section 4.17. He then commented that many of the metal buildings in the area were 25 years old or less. Chair Sladek pointed out that the Quonset huts and Ranchway Feeds were well over 25 years old. Mr. Hogestad said Ranchway Feeds was mostly painted concrete block with a few metal pieces. Chair Sladek asked the Commission to look at the sample motions and findings of fact included in the staff report and asked whether anyone had any additional findings of fact for consideration, either for or against. Ms. Gensmer asked to confirm that the plan of protection would be provided and asked whether it would come before the LPC. Ms. McWilliams said it is required in the Municipal Code, but they don’t usually bring those forward to the Commission. Mr. Yatabe said that they could look at it for informational purposes, but the Commission would not impose that as a condition. Ms. Gensmer requested to see it when it is available, purely for informational purposes. Mr. Yatabe noted that they should include specific findings of fact for the decision maker, in this case the Planning & Zoning Board (P&Z). Mr. Ernest asked whether the suggested findings in the staff report were sufficient. Mr. Yatabe said they were sufficient, but they could elaborate on any particular point(s). Chair Sladek said they don’t have a good feel for what issues may be of concern to the P&Z. Mr. Yatabe said they should express their own concerns for the consideration of the P&Z in its review. Commission Deliberation Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to the Decision Maker approval of the River District Block 8 Mixed-Use Project (PDP140016), finding it is in compliance with the standards contained in Land Use Code section 3.4.7 and the River Downtown Redevelopment (R-D-R) Zone District Design Guidelines in regard to compatibility with the character of the project’s area of adjacency for the following reasons: 1) The project design uses massing and scale that is compatible with adjacent historic buildings. 2) The project uses appropriate step-backs and site design to mitigate height relative to the historic context. City of Fort Collins Page 4 April 27, 2016 3) The project relies on building materials that are compatible with adjacent historic properties. 4) The project uses window patterning and proportions that are typical of the adjacent historic context. Ms. Gensmer seconded. Mr. Lingle suggested adding to the motion that it was also in compliance with the River Downtown Redevelopment (R-D-R) Zone District Design Guidelines. Mr. Ernest and Ms. Gensmer agreed, and the motion has been amended to reflect that. Mr. Yatabe pointed out that this particular case, their purview was 3.4.7, but compliance with the RDR guidelines was part of the discussion and that would be included in the minutes. Mr. Lingle disagreed, stating that it would be important to note in the motion that the Commission felt that the project complies with the RDR guidelines so that is clear to the P&Z. Mr. Yatabe explained that the minutes would be provided to the P&Z. Mr. Ernest asked if they could also reference LUC Section 4.17 in the motion, since that section establishes the RDR as a zone district. Mr. Yatabe said he has already recommended that the motion be based on 3.4.7, but if they are free to incorporate it in the motion if they wish. Chair Sladek said the reference to the RDR had already been added to the motion and seconded. Mr. Hogestad said he would not support the motion, stating that the south elevation is incompatible with the historic context of the area of adjacency because of the large quantity of material that references newer buildings rather than historic buildings. Ms. Dunn had located the document about the Quonset huts and noted several of them were assembled on their sites in the late 40’s and early 50’s, so there may be potentially eligible metal buildings in the area. She was concerned they hadn’t thought of including them in the area of adjacency. She asked if the list could be amended at this point. Mr. Yatabe said the motion on the table must first be dealt with in some manner. The motion could be withdrawn, and then they could discuss amending the area of adjacencies if they wish. Ms. Dunn asked if Ms. McWilliams knew about the eligibility of those buildings, but she stated she did not, and since the most recent study was conducted around 2000-2002, they do not have current determinations. Ms. Dunn withdrew her suggestion to amend the adjacencies, but she stated that they are part of the neighborhood and are corrugated metal. Mr. Hogestad added that the project proposes the use of composite metal panel, not corrugated metal, which is not similar to the historic material. Mr. Frick said that he would not support the motion for the same reasons Mr. Hogestad had mentioned, adding that three sides of the building look great, but the south side has too much metal. Motion passed 6:2. 3. LANDMARK APARTMENTS EXPANSION – CONCEPTUAL REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This development project proposes to expand the existing Landmark Apartments by constructing additional apartment buildings. The project proposes five apartment buildings, with a mix of 2 and 3-stories containing 72 units, with a total of 148 bedrooms. The project abuts the Sheely Drive Neighborhood Historic District, and is subject to meeting the Standards in LUC 3.4.7. This is a Type 2 project, and the Planning and Zoning Board will be the Decision Maker. APPLICANT: Cathy Mathis, The Birdsall Group Randall Johnson, Infusion Architects Mr. Hogestad and Mr. Yatabe recused themselves due to residing within the notification area. Ms. Gensmer disclosed that she had previously lived at the Landmark Apartments, but stated that did not influence her opinions on this item. City of Fort Collins Page 5 April 27, 2016 Judy Schmidt, Senior Assistant City Attorney, served as legal counsel for this item. Staff Report Ms. McWilliams presented the staff report, describing the project, the Commission’s role in the process, as well as an overview of the surrounding properties. She also noted that the 2002 Kramer Study had been provided in the packet per the Commission’s request at a previous meeting. Applicant Presentation [Note: The presentation was significantly different than what was originally included in the packet, and the updated presentation has since been added to packet for the record. Mr. Johnson’s narrative closely followed the information in that slide presentation.] Mr. Johnson said he would like specific feedback on the architecture. He said they had tried to incorporate the Commission’s previous feedback into the revised design. Mr. Johnson discussed how they have met the criteria for the MMN (Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood) Zone District, which is intended to be a buffer between the commercial and residential areas. He talked about how the design had progressed and discussed their collaboration with the neighborhood. He highlighted two of the biggest changes in the design since the last meeting. First, the project had previously included three three-story buildings on the north side of the canal, but as a result of feedback at the neighborhood meeting, one of those buildings was removed and the buildings that were previously three-stories have been dropped to two. Second, he pointed out that they had also stepped buildings into the grade along the panhandle, and added that the rooflines stepped in correspondence with the grade. He explained their efforts to meet the requirements of 3.4.7, as well as incorporate the guidelines from the 2002 Kramer Study provided by the City. While the characteristics and materials are similar, the applications are different, so he asked for the Commission’s input on how to meet both. He highlighted how the project addressed the compatibility criteria in 3.4.7, specifically discussing height, setback and width, architectural character, building materials, visual and pedestrian connections, their efforts to protect the view shed, and the use of landscaping. With regard to materials, he pointed out that the Kramer Study mixed a wide variety of materials, while the Sheely District uses more simplistic materials in more expansive areas. He asked the Commission for specific guidance on how best to address both. Mr. Dave Derbes, representing the owner as the Development Manager, asked whether it was appropriate for a Commission member to have spoken as a neighbor at the previous meeting. Ms. Schmidt responded, clarifying that the member would not be participating in the Commission discussions or decision making. She said it was a difficult balance between exercising his rights as a property owner without seeking to influence the decision in his capacity as a Commission member. Public Input Deb Applin stated she was a resident of the neighborhood and had participated in the small groups, and has seen the plans evolve to become more in line with their historic values. She is still concerned about size of the buildings, particularly the three-story buildings in the panhandle. Per Hogestad identified himself as a Commission member and a resident of the Historic District. He identified three main concerns of the neighborhood: the density of the site, the building height, scale and mass, and architectural vocabulary. He went on to say that the site density is inconsistent with the Historic District in that it doesn’t allow for compatible building orientation, sufficient street edge or open space, and it doesn’t meet the required residential zone buffer or wetland setback. He said the City of Fort Collins Page 6 April 27, 2016 height, mass and scale are inconsistent with the Historic District, emphasizing that the buildings need to be articulated and stepped down, and noting there are no one-story components as a transition to the single story Sheely residences. With regard to the architecture, he added that the exterior eaves should extend much further to visually reduce the building heights. He said decks, balconies and horizontal pieces should be used to reduce the visual height. He said materials should be used in patterns, commenting that in the Sheely district the materials of each building are different than the next, but harmonize together. He stated the neighborhood doesn’t think three-story buildings are appropriate at all. He said the essence of the Historic District’s design ethic is a solid to void composition with elements such as windows, large overhangs, implied spaces, recessed and protruding wall planes and floating roof planes that create a sum of parts that in turn create a whole – in other words, gestalt theory. He said the neighborhood would like to hear the Commission’s comments about how the over-scaled and overly dense site plan intrudes on the District. He asked the Commission to specifically discuss a more thoughtful approach to the architecture rather than “dressing up boxes”; the use of materials, bulk, mass and scale in relation to the District; and how the proposal relates to and protects the Historic District. Coleen Hoffman said she was a resident of the neighborhood and has been active in the neighborhood meetings. She expressed concern about the size of the project, adding that it appears more massive than the existing Landmark Apartments. She said she would like to understand the 25’ setback from the residences. She is concerned about the proximity to the wetlands and shared her observations about the flooding issues in the area. She objected to any three-story buildings, noting that the Sheely homes are taxed as ranch style one-story homes, even though some have walkout basements. Ann Hunt, a 30 year resident of the neighborhood, expressed concern about the number of parking places for the residents. She said some of the spaces were designated as “compact spaces” and was not clear on what that meant. She said there are parking restrictions in the neighborhood already, and there is no place for any overflow parking. Commission Questions and Discussion Chair Sladek asked if Staff had anything to add, and Ms. McWilliams said she did not have any new information. Chair Sladek asked if they need to establish the area adjacency. Ms. McWilliams said they didn’t have determinations of eligibility for the potential adjacencies. Ms. Gensmer said she would prefer to wait until they have all of the information. Mr. Lingle asked whether the units from the sixth building they have omitted were dispersed throughout the other units, or if they have actually reduced the number of overall units and bedrooms. Mr. Johnson responded that they moved some units to another area of the project, but overall, the bedroom count has actually increased. Mr. Lingle mentioned that the site plan indicates which buildings are three-story and which are two- story, but doesn’t indicate which ones step down from three to two stories. Mr. Johnson explained that Building B stepped from three to two stories in order to protect the southwest corridor view shed. Building E was stepped down from three to two stories on the east side which is closest to the neighborhood. He added that Building A is three stories, although it is dropped a little bit. Mr. Lingle asked where the Kramer Study came from and why it is in the packet. Ms. McWilliams explained that the Kramer Study came out of a City-sponsored design charrette with the neighbors in 2001 which endeavored to determine what kind of development could fit with that neighborhood. The City hired Winter, Kramer & Jessup to translate the results of the charrette into more formal language, and a pattern book was created based on that. To her knowledge, the Young’s Creek plan in the study was never submitted as part of a formal development plan, but was created as an example of what could be done in Young’s Creek Pasture to conform to that pattern book. Mr. Lingle asked whether the pattern book or any part of this study was ever adopted officially as part of a plan. Ms. McWilliams said she did not believe it was officially adopted, but it was her understanding that it was established that any development to come in for the Young’s Creek Pasture at that time would need to conform to the pattern book. City of Fort Collins Page 7 April 27, 2016 Mr. Lingle questioned the relevance of those plans, adding that he didn’t believe a developer could be held to it as a standard since it has not been adopted. If they are to use these as guidelines or standards, he requested more support for that at the next step in this process. Absent that, he would find it irrelevant. Mr. Lingle also clarified that several issues raised by the neighbors, such as buffers, open spaces, infringement upon the flood plain, etc., are under the P&Z’s purview, not the LPC’s. Mr. Frick said the Applicant had made great effort to incorporate elements of the Young’s Creek Study between their first proposal and this one. However, the site plan in the study had 20 units and seven buildings, while the Applicant’s plan has 72 units and five buildings. The buildings themselves seem huge and out of scale with the Sheely Drive neighborhood based on LUC Section 3.4.7. He suggested that the project is too dense for the site. He commented on the masonry elements in the study that went through the roofs, but this proposal has nothing through the roofs. They seem like apartment buildings that don’t address the design elements of the Sheely neighborhood. He said it’s over-scaled and too dense. He added that the fact that the property is now owned by the same owner as the original Landmark Apartments does allow them to have a smaller driveway and bridge across the creek. Mr. Lingle clarified that his earlier comments weren’t addressing compatibility, but he was just questioning the relevance of the Kramer Study. He agrees with Mr. Frick that their purview and responsibility is to evaluate this proposal against 3.4.7 and primarily the Sheely Drive neighborhood. Ms. Dunn noted that according to the minutes from the first meeting on this item, Mr. Derbes had stated that when they came back they would include models showing elevations of the new structures in relation to the existing Sheely residences to provide context. She said it was difficult to respond to the impact of the height without being able to see what it would actually look like from the backs of the Sheely houses. Mr. Frick said he thought he had asked for a cross section that last time to show relationships between the buildings and surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Derbes said they have those, and had presented them at the neighborhood meeting, but didn’t include them in the submittal. He said he would make sure to get those to the Commission. He added that at an equivalent grade, even a one-story next to a one-story will have a visual impact. Ms. Dunn said that this design is focused on verticality, but long horizontality should be the focus in order to fit with the pattern of Sheely. She suggested that using chimneys would also help to fit with the pattern in Sheely. She also thought additive horizontal pieces such as in the Young’s Creek Study would help. She pointed out that it wasn’t just a change of color or materials, but something added to it. Ms. Dunn also said that the small horizontal pieces over the doors look more like lintels, or a cap over the door, rather than a long floating feel. Mr. Frick mentioned that in the Sheely neighborhood, the materials are different from house to house. This project uses the same materials in the same way on every building. Ms. Dunn pointed out some photos in the Applicant presentation that exemplified the floating roofs and chimneys of the Sheely residences that she would like to see more of in this project. Ms. Dunn inquired about the roof pitch in the Sheely homes compared to the apartments. Mr. Derbes said the apartments are all 4/12, but the Sheely homes vary between flat, 2/12 and 4/12. Mr. Ernest said since the alignment of the Sheely homes varies, the view sheds are more complex. He said he too would like to see the view sheds and gradient from a more 3D aspect. He also agreed with Mr. Lingle’s comments about items mentioned by the neighbors that were not within the purview of the LPC under 3.4.7, and added that the trash enclosures and headlights would also fall under the P&Z’s purview. Ms. Gensmer asked about the potential for using the grading to step down some of the buildings. Mr. Derbes reiterated that they had already brought down the heights of the buildings on the north side from three to two, and went on to explain that the water tables present a challenge with burying some of the buildings in the grade. Ms. Zink said the design is a pretty standard apartment building. She agreed with Mr. Frick that the exterior materials are arbitrarily applied in conflict with the mid-century modern aesthetic which has a reason for the materials, and scale to it. She would also like to see the buildings placed in a more City of Fort Collins Page 8 April 27, 2016 organic way, or broken up visually. The mid-century modern aesthetic is to tie indoors to outdoors, which is not reflected here. She would like to see something to make these special, rather than just boxes. Mr. Frick said they need to take a look at density, height, scale and massing, and diversity of materials, more like the Sheely neighborhood. Ms. Dunn agreed with Ms. Zink that the building orientations should not all be one direction. Mr. Lingle agreed with Mr. Frick and Ms. Zink’s comments and also pointed out that they’ve removed one building but intensified the rest with regard to density. He said perhaps the footprint needs to be expanded so the height and scale could come down. He suggested the use of long, low overhangs that embrace the natural setting and are indicative of mid-century modern design. Mr. Frick pointed out that the Kramer study had suggested three foot overhangs. Chair Sladek said the members seem uncomfortable with the proposal because it doesn’t comply with 3.4.7 in a variety of ways. He said the Applicant needs to rethink the project for the LPC to support it. Mr. Derbes said they had tried to incorporate neighborhood and City Planning concerns by pushing the density away from the Sheely neighborhood. He pointed out that since Sheely is one-story houses and the existing Landmark Apartments are primarily three-story, they have tried to step up from two stories on the north to three stories as they move away from the historic area. He explained the reasoning for the placement of the density and said they feel like they’ve done a lot to address that. They went from 82 units to 72 and from six buildings to five, and tried to do that in a sensitive way. As far as the architectural character, there is a lot of variation in the Sheely neighborhood, and they’ve tried to incorporate a number of those elements, but clearly have more work to do. Mr. Johnson said they have to follow the 3.4.7 Code, but knowing that the neighbors had given their blessing to the Kramer Study guidelines, they are trying to blend the two. He appreciated the specific suggestions from the Commission about how to do that. Mr. Frick said the biggest issues are mass and density, so 72 units are probably not going to work. Chair Sladek called for a short break. Mr. Hogestad and Mr. Yatabe rejoined the Commission when the meeting reconvened. 4. FINAL DESIGN REVIEW - WATER WORKS INTERPRETIVE MUSEUM, 2005 NORTH OVERLAND TRAIL PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Poudre Landmarks Foundation (PLF) is exploring the reuse of the historic Fort Collins Water Works buildings and site as a water interpretive museum, and has received a State Historical Fund grant to assist with developing plans. Alterations and new construction to designated Landmark properties are subject to review under Municipal Code Section 14-48. The PLF has submitted its preliminary design for the proposed improvements and development of the Water Works Interpretive Museum. Any concerns, comments or suggestion would be greatly appreciated, so that can be incorporated or addressed as the design develops. APPLICANT: Peter Stewart, Stewart Architecture Mr. Ernest recused himself from this item, having been previously involved in the planning for the interpretive museum as a member of the PLF. Mr. Frick was a former board member of the PLF, but said that did not create a conflict. Staff Report Ms. McWilliams presented the staff report. Chair Sladek asked about the LPC’s purview if this is outside the City limits. Ms. McWilliams said it is an official City of Fort Collins Landmark, which is why they have purview. Chair Sladek asked Mr. Yatabe to look into their review authority of a project outside the City limits. City of Fort Collins Page 9 April 27, 2016 Applicant Presentation Mr. Stewart gave the Applicant presentation. He said since it is a landmarked property it requires the report of acceptability. He said they had received a State Historic Fund grant since the last time they came to the LPC. They haven’t made many significant changes to the original concept plan, other than the floor plan of the superintendent’s house. It is an adaptive reuse plan, since it will no longer be a water plant. They have made minor changes to the mechanical, windows, etc. They plan to put restrooms in the superintendent’s house. There has been restoration work on the barn and chicken coop. There have been archeological studies done identifying potential finds and features. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion Ms. Gensmer asked about the archeology, noting there is a potential dugout in the parking area. Mr. Stewart said there is now more adequate separation between the two. Ms. Gensmer asked about the archeological monitoring that would take place, and Mr. Stewart confirmed that they would be doing that. There would be some excavation inside, and also grade changes in the parking lot. There was discussion about the dugout and whether it may have been a root cellar, and it was established that it has high archeological potential and is a contributing feature of the site. Mr. Frick asked if the old wood water main stave pipes were still in the barn. Jennifer Beccard, Executive Director for PLF, responded that some of those artifacts are still on the site and in the barn. She said the Martinez Farm winters the ponies in that barn, and Chair Sladek was pleased that it was still being used for some agricultural purpose. Mr. Hogestad asked about the paving. Mr. Stewart said the drives and parking area is gravel to be more compatible with the site. They had to get a waiver from the County Commissioners for that, since they require paving. The walkways are crusher fines. They will be accessible routes, which will require a little more maintenance. Since the front entrance will be a gathering place, they will use sandstone pavers which are more durable to hold up to foot traffic. Mr. Hogestad asked if the gravel and crusher fines would be kept in place with bender board edging. Mr. Stewart explained that there would be edging around the accessible parking spaces, and there is a small concrete curb between some areas, but the parking area is more rural in character. Mr. Hogestad asked about the color of those materials, and Mr. Stewart responded that the gravel and crusher fines would be gray and the sandstone would be buff with a pattern that is clearly distinguishable as a new material. Chair Sladek wanted to make sure the plan shows that the buff sandstone is new and not historic. Mr. Hogestad asked if they were square pavers, which would help to demonstrate that it’s a newer material. Mr. Stewart confirmed they were. Mr. Frick asked whether they might be able to incorporate some of the wood stave pipes from the barn into the sign that was shown on their preliminary plans. Chair Sladek pointed out the identification sign had been eliminated from the plan. Mr. Stewart said the plan has changed, but there will still be a sign. Chair Sladek said he hadn’t heard any concerns related to the standards. Mr. Yatabe said he doubted the LPC had jurisdiction over this matter. Chapter 14 is worded to apply to the City within municipal limits, so unless there was an intergovernmental agreement that gave them jurisdiction in this case, the City of Fort Collins doesn’t have the authority to impose its Land Use Code outside the city limits. He said it was fine to take action, but be aware that action may be void. Chair Sladek had concerns about consistency, since their purview over historic properties had been discussed before. There was discussion about how the Water Works was designated and whether it was a City-owned building. Mr. Stewart said they value the Commission’s opinion and would like to have a finding that the plans meet the City standards, regardless of the jurisdiction. Mr. Yatabe said if the Applicant is requesting them to take action, then that would be fine, although the motion should be subject to the Landmark Preservation Commission having purview over this matter. Chair Sladek would like further clarification on this from the City Attorney for future reference. City of Fort Collins Page 10 April 27, 2016 Commission Deliberation Mr. Frick moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approves the plans and specifications for the Water Waters Interpretive Museum located at 2005 North Overland Trail as presented, finding that the proposed work (a) will not erode the authenticity or destroy any distinctive exterior feature or characteristic of the improvements or site; and (b) is compatible with the distinctive characteristics of the landmark and with the spirit and purpose of Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code, subject to the Landmark Preservation Commission having purview over this matter. Mr. Lingle seconded. Motion passed 7:0. Mr. Lingle asked for additional clarification about their purview with regarding the River District item. Mr. Yatabe responded that their purview in making that recommendation was tied to 3.4.7. They can consider other sections or guidelines to assist in interpreting the Code, but should not refer to them in the motion, as their decision must be based strictly on 3.4.7. Mr. Lingle suggested expanding 3.4.7 to include other guidelines (River District, Old Town, etc.). Mr. Hogestad suggested that Section 3.5 is also very closely tied to 3.4.7, and there are probably other sections of the code that would apply. Chair Sladek cautioned against expanding into the P&Z’s realm. Mr. Yatabe discussed the legal standing of aspirational documents versus codified documents. Chair Sladek suggested that they may need more guidance on that moving forward. 5. DOWNTOWN PLAN URBAN DESIGN DISCUSSION The purpose of this item is to allow members of the Planning staff to present information about modeling efforts associated with the physical and design components of the Downtown Plan. [Note: This item was pulled from the agenda just prior to the meeting.] • OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Hogestad brought up a previous discussion about identifying “buildings of merit” and asked whether anyone had given it any thought. Chair Sladek explained Boulder’s system, which has failed in some regard due to being reactive instead of proactive. He said it would be nice to launch such a program if we had the Staff resources. He suggested that Commission members and/or Staff would suggest, discuss and identify properties. Mr. Lingle asked if it was tied to consent of the owner, and Chair Sladek said it wouldn’t necessarily have to be. Members discussed the idea of having each member bring a list of five to ten places to the next meeting. Ms. Bzdek said she had recently forwarded the Commission a recent request with an immediate need to do this with the Old Town neighborhoods plans. She suggested using that as a way to test the idea. Ms. Bzdek offered to recirculate that request for their consideration. Chair Sladek asked if they want to add this item in Other Business for the next meeting. They discussed bringing in ideas for both the Old Town neighborhoods and citywide. Chair Sladek mentioned he would be absent for the next meeting and that Mr. Ernest would be chairing. • ADJOURNMENT Chair Sladek adjourned the meeting at 9:02 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by Gretchen Schiager.