Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 07/13/2016City of Fort Collins Page 1 July 13, 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 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 July 13, 2016 Minutes • CALL TO ORDER Chair Sladek called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. • ROLL CALL PRESENT: Dunn, Zink, Hogestad, Wallace, Gensmer, Lingle, Sladek ABSENT: Ernest, Frick STAFF: McWilliams, Yatabe, Schiager • AGENDA REVIEW No changes to posted agenda. • STAFF REPORTS None. • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. Landmark Preservation Commission City of Fort Collins Page 2 July 13, 2016 • DISCUSSION AGENDA [Timestamp: 5:37 p.m.] 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 8, 2016 REGULAR MEETING. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the June 8, 2016 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. Ms. Dunn & Chair Sladek recused themselves from the vote due to being absent on June 8th. Mr. Lingle pointed out a typographical error to be changed prior to publication. Mr. Hogestad moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the minutes of the June 8, 2016 regular meeting. Ms. Gensmer seconded. Motion passed 5-0. [Timestamp: 5:39 p.m.] 2. 222 LAPORTE AVENUE - RECOMMENDATION TO DECISION MAKER ON ALTERATIONS TO LABORATORY BUILDING (BUTTERFLY BUILDING) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a Final Development Review and Recommendation to the Decision Maker on Proposed Alterations to the Historic Poudre Creamery Laboratory Building (Butterfly Building) at 222 Laporte Avenue. APPLICANT: Brian Hergott, Facilities Project Manager, Operation Services Mr. Hogestad and Ms. Zink disclosed having participated in the Design Review for this project. Staff Report Ms. McWilliams presented the staff report stating the applicant is proposing alterations consisting of relocating and widening the north entrance, color changes, and signage including an interpretive reconstruction of the early Dairy Gold sign. The building has been determined to be individually eligible as a Fort Collins landmark. Applicant Presentation Jason Kersey, au Workshop, gave the Applicant presentation showing slides of the building in its original location and new location and discussed the building’s Googie architecture. In terms of the north entrance, the proposal is to move the door one foot four inches further from the corner and make the door one foot wider. Mr. Kersey detailed the needed components of the interior of the building in order for it to be used as a coffee shop. He stated the color scheme may need to be addressed at a later date as the current plan may not be the ideal one and detailed the proposed signage. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion Mr. Lingle asked about the color scheme. Mr. Kersey replied the gray-on-gray works today, but isn’t necessarily true to the Googie era style. Mr. Hogestad asked why the door is moved and widened. Mr. Kersey explained that there were inefficiencies in the layout of the space, and a bigger outward swinging door would work better for deliveries. Ms. Dunn asked about the width of the door. Mr. Kersey replied the original door was two feet wide and the proposed door is three feet wide. Mr. Hogestad asked if there would be an alternative equipment layout that would work with the original door position and expressed concern about such a major alteration to the building. Mr. Kersey replied moving the door was not the first option; however, it allows for a much more efficient layout. Brian Hergott commented on difficulties relating to deliveries and customer access with the original door layout. Mr. Lingle noted the door is on the rear façade of the building and stated he is not particularly concerned with the proposed alteration, adding that it is an adaptive reuse. Ms. Zink asked how the location and size of the door work with the brick module. Mr. Kersey replied the movement of the door will still allow it to land on a module. City of Fort Collins Page 3 July 13, 2016 Chair Sladek noted that the building has already been altered by being moved. He stated that while he understands Mr. Lingle’s point that the change to the door may be a necessity for an adaptive reuse, he stated he would need to hear a strong argument to be convinced. Chair Sladek asked if the building tenant could address the reasons for moving the door. The tenant, Tim LaGreca spoke, explaining that he and his wife, pastry chef Elizabeth Meyers, operate a commercial kitchen in town and provide desserts for various restaurants in the area. He stated not having a commercial kitchen would make the use of this building impossible due to the lack of space and discussed the design limitations of the building. He discussed wanting the building to stand out and be noticeable and detailed the need for a wider rear door for their operation to be successful. He emphasized that the 26” width of standard baking sheets, and the carts necessary to move the pastries properly, would not fit through the existing door. Chair Sladek requested comment on the layout from Mr. Hergott. Mr. Hergott replied meeting ADA and health requirements were very challenging and eliminating the bathroom would not be possible. Chair Sladek asked about the possibility of moving the bathroom to another corner so the window would not have to be frosted. Mr. LaGreca replied that was the original layout; however, it would not fit. He went on to discuss the importance of the design and functionality, adding that they explored numerous layouts throughout what was a very thorough design process. Mr. Lingle asked if the air conditioner on the north elevation would be visible from other vantage points. Mr. Hergott replied it will be painted to disappear and is covered by the roof slope from various angles. Mr. Hogestad stated there are several scenarios he thought could work and would like to see previous versions of the tenant’s plans in order to be convinced this is the only option. Ms. Dunn asked about the sign and name. Mr. LaGreca replied the actual sign will say ‘bakery’ or ‘bakery and coffee.’ Ms. Dunn asked if the tenant had considered using an orange trim on the building. Mr. Hogestad stated the design review resulted in trying to get away from a gas station feel. Chair Sladek suggested using brighter colors would be indicative of the Googie architecture. Ms. Wallace would like to see the roof line emphasized with a brighter color. Ms. Zink stated the beam should contrast with the soffit. Mr. Hogestad suggested finding out what the original colors of the building were and expressed some doubt the building is representative of Googie architecture. Mr. Lingle asked if a motion could include a condition that the final color scheme come before the LPC at a later meeting or that it would be approved by Staff. Ms. McWilliams replied the final decision remains up to the Commission and Staff would need very clear direction should they be given the direction to make the decision. Mr. Lingle stated he would like the colors to come back before the Commission. Mr. Hogestad stated the signage likely does not meet the Sign Code and the proposal may require a recommendation from the Commission. Mr. Hergott replied he would like to receive a recommendation regarding the rear door and signage package if possible. Ms. Dunn requested information regarding the location of the loading dock and transportation of product from the truck to the back door. Mr. Kersey replied loading will occur from the alley, up a ramp to the back door. Mr. Hergott noted the alley acts as the civic spine and stated the mid-street crossing is on the west side of the subject building. Ms. Dunn requested an image of the new back door. Mr. Kersey replied the current door is wood and it is planned to be replaced with a wood grain fiberglass door with no windows. Chair Sladek asked if the new door would be painted, to which Mr. Kersey replied that it would. Mr. Hogestad suggested a painted metal flush panel door. Chair Sladek asked if there is room for patio seating around the building. Mr. Kersey replied in the affirmative. Mr. LaGreca discussed the specific outdoor seating plan and pedestrian traffic flow. Chair Sladek asked if neon was considered for the sign. Mr. Kersey replied a LED light with letter tracing has been considered. Commission Deliberation City of Fort Collins Page 4 July 13, 2016 Mr. Lingle moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to the Decision Maker approval of the work proposed for the Poudre Valley Creamery Laboratory Building at 222 Laporte Avenue, finding that it is substantially in compliance with the standards contained in Land Use Code section 3.4.7 in regard to compatibility with the character of the existing historic building and with the project’s area of adjacency for the following reasons: • The new construction is designed to respect and is compatible with the historic character of the Butterfly Building. • The proposed door alteration is a minor modification to a non-primary façade. As a condition to the motion, the proposed final color scheme for the exterior of the building and the final design of the signage, including colors, lighting and font style, come back to the Landmark Preservation Commission at a future meeting for approval. Mr. Yatabe halted the proceedings prior to a second to interject some information about the process. He questioned why this would not be considered a demolition/alteration review and discussed the various processes which could possibly be utilized under Land Use Code 3.4.7 or Municipal Code Section 14. Mr. Lingle asked if this process is essentially a demolition/alteration review. Ms. McWilliams replied Staff will take its direction from the City Attorney’s Office. Mr. Yatabe stated Section 3.4.7(f) applies to new construction. Chair Sladek stated the staff report references that section; however, it appears Section 3.4.7(d) is the applicable section. Mr. Yatabe questioned whether there are two applicable provisions and requested a brief recess to examine the Code language. The Commission took a brief recess at this point in the meeting. Mr. Yatabe suggested tabling the item until the next meeting and discussed his concern regarding the applicability of Section 3.4.7 as opposed to Section 14. Chair Sladek asked Mr. Hergott if he would undergo undue hardship should this item be tabled to the next meeting. Mr. Hergott replied that would not be his preference; however, it may be the only option. Mr. Lingle withdrew his motion. Mr. Lingle moved that the 222 Laporte Avenue alterations to the Laboratory Building, otherwise known as the Butterfly Building, item be continued to the next regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission on July 27. Ms. Gensmer seconded. Motion passed 7:0. [Timestamp: 7:20 p.m.] 3. POUDRE GARAGE (BDR160007) – REQUEST FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE DECISION MAKER 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 is in the Old City Center subdistrict of the Downtown District and would include six residential units totally 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. Several individually eligible and landmarked properties are adjacent to the project. This is a Basic Development Review (BDR) process, therefore the Commission’s recommendation will be to the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services. There is no public hearing associated with a BDR decision. The Director’s decision may be appealed to the Planning and Zoning Board. APPLICANT: Jason Kersey, [au]workshop, llc Staff Report City of Fort Collins Page 5 July 13, 2016 Ms. McWilliams presented the staff report noting the property is a designated Fort Collins landmark. Additionally, she discussed other individually eligible and landmarked properties which are adjacent to the project. Chair Sladek requested confirmation this item is to be considered under Section 3.4.7. Mr. Yatabe explained how this item may be reviewed under Section 3.4.7 or Chapter 14 given this is an alteration to a designated property. Ms. McWilliams stated the earlier review of this project showed it presented in two parts, as a new development which would fall under 3.4.7 and as the use of an existing historic structure which would fall under Chapter 14. Mr. Yatabe stated the distinguishing issue between this project and the previous project is the aspect of new construction being considered in this case. Chair Sladek discussed the need for a review under Section 3.4.7 and noted a report of acceptability should be issued by the Commission. Ms. McWilliams suggested tabling the item as the staff analysis and recommendation is based on 3.4.7, and no preparation has been made for a Chapter 14 discussion. Mr. Lingle discussed the various review criteria. Ms. McWilliams stated this project was initially examined as an infill development; however, if it is to be considered an addition to a landmarked building, it would be reviewed under Chapter 14. Mr. Hogestad argued this should be considered under Chapter 14 as it is an attachment to a landmarked building. Mr. Yatabe suggested tabling consideration of the item to the next meeting. Chair Sladek expressed a preference for continuing to the next meeting unless the Commission feels they are ready to move forward under either 3.4.7 or Chapter 14. Mr. Lingle agreed with tabling the item to get Staff’s analysis under Chapter 14. Commission Deliberation Mr. Lingle moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission continue the Poudre Garage project development proposal at 148 Remington Street to the July 27th regular meeting. Ms. Zink seconded. Motion passed 7:0. Mr. Kersey asked what should be prepared for the next meeting. Chair Sladek replied the current presentation is sufficient; however, staff will present a new review based on the appropriate review criteria. Mr. Hogestad reminded the Applicant that on the previous item (the Butterfly Building), the Commission had asked for some additional information regarding paint colors, signage, etc.. [Timestamp: 7:42 p.m.] 4. 221 EAST MOUNTAIN AVENUE - PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW & REQUEST FOR RECOMMENDATION TO DECISION MAKER PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a proposal to construct an approximately 65,000 square foot, four- story building at the southwest corner of East Mountain Avenue and Mathews Street. The project is adjacent to several designated and individually eligible buildings, including the Old Town District. The development proposal (PDP160011) will be subject to Basic Development Review. APPLICANT: Jason Messaros, BHA Design, 1603 Oakridge Dr., Fort Collins Ms. Zink, Chair Sladek and Ms. Dunn disclosed having participated in the Design Review. City of Fort Collins Page 6 July 13, 2016 Staff Report Ms. McWilliams presented the staff report noting this review process considers the impact of the proposed development on historic resources within a defined area of adjacency. An existing vacant brick building on the property has been found to not be individually eligible. Staff has found the proposed project to be substantially in compliance with Land Use Code Section 3.4.7. Applicant Presentation Mark Melchi, MAVD, gave the Applicant presentation and showed slides of the proposed project. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion Mr. Hogestad requested information about the stone veneer materials. Mr. Melchi replied the corner elements are planned to be local stone; however, a final selection has not been made. It will be similar to the elements of the Bohemian building. Mr. Hogestad complimented the proposed building and stated it works well within the historic context in terms of the modulation, materials, window patterning and the finer details. Ms. Dunn complimented the proposed building as fitting appropriately in the Old Town area, and expressed appreciation for the way the Applicant incorporated the Commission’s earlier comments into the design. Ms. Zink stated the new design is excellent and includes thoughtful improvements. She appreciated the recess of the fourth floor. Ms. Dunn complimented the way in which the corner is accented. Chair Sladek commended the elegant design stating it reflects the modern yet historic aesthetic and fits into the historic environment in a way that complies with 3.4.7. Commission Deliberation Mr. Hogestad moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission waive conceptual review and move directly to final review. Ms. Dunn seconded. The motion passed 7:0. Mr. Hogestad asked about the color on the west elevation. Mr. Melchi replied they were asked by the DDA to place a hard surface material on the first floor for durability. The elevation drawing is the current plan. The Commission discussed the recommended area of adjacency. Ms. Zink moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission adopt the area of adjacency listed in the staff report for the project at 221 E. Mountain Ave. Ms. Gensmer seconded. The motion passed 7:0. Mr. Hogestad moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission adopt a resolution recommending to the Decision Maker the approval of the development proposal located at 221 East Mountain Avenue as presented at the July 13, 2016 meeting of the Commission, finding that the project is in compliance with Land Use Code 3.4.7 and does not adversely affect the historic integrity of the area of adjacency. The Commission further finds that the project design uses traditional proportions and historic modules typically found in the surrounding historic context; uses massing and appropriate step backs to mitigate heights that are relative to the historic context; uses compatible solid to void window patterns; uses historically scaled materials; uses similar pedestrian scale to that of the area of adjacency; uses material choices to reduce mass. If the design changes substantially, the project would come back to the Commission. Ms. Zink seconded. The motion passed 7:0. • OTHER BUSINESS None