Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 08/19/2020Landmark Preservation Commission Page 1 August 19, 2020 Meg Dunn, Chair Location: Alexandra Wallace, Co-Vice Chair This meeting was held Michael Bello remotely via Zoom. Mollie Bredehoft Kurt Knierim Elizabeth Michell Kevin Murray Anne Nelsen Vacant Seat Regular Meeting AUGUST 19, 2020 Minutes • CALL TO ORDER Chair Dunn called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m. [**Secretary's Note: Due to the COVID-19 crisis and state and local orders to remain safer at home and not gather, all Commission members, staff, and citizens attended the meeting remotely, via teleconference.] • ROLL CALL PRESENT: Bello, Dunn, Knierim, Michel, Murray, Nelsen, Wallace ABSENT: Bredehoft STAFF: McWilliams, Bzdek, Bertolini, Yatabe, Schiager, Overton • AGENDA REVIEW No changes to posted agenda. • CONSENT AGENDA REVIEW No items were pulled from consent. • STAFF REPORTS None. Landmark Preservation Commission Landmark Preservation Commission Page 2 August 19, 2020 • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. • CONSENT AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JULY 15, 2020 The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the July 15, 2020 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. Mr. Bello moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the Consent Agenda of the regular meeting as presented. Mr. Murray seconded. The motion passed 7-0. • DISCUSSION AGENDA 2. STAFF DESIGN REVIEW DECISIONS ON DESIGNATED PROPERTIES Staff is tasked with reviewing projects and, in cases where the project can be approved without submitting to the Landmarks Preservation Commission, with issuing a Certificate of Appropriateness or a SHPO report under Chapter 14, Article IV of the City’s Municipal Code. This item is a report of all such review decisions since the last regular meeting of the Commission. Staff Report Mr. Bertolini presented the staff report. He explained that this item will no longer be part of the consent agenda since it does not require action from the Commission. He provided a brief review of the report. Board Questions and Discussion None 3. OAK 140 MIXED USE PROJECT – FINAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DESCRIPTION: A five-story, mixed-use development with ground floor office and retail, parking on levels 1 and 2, and affordable apartment units (studio, 1 and 2 bedroom) on levels 1, 3, 4, and 5, to be constructed on the parcels currently addressed as 140 E Oak and 143 Remington in the Historic Core of the Downtown District. APPLICANT: Owners: Downtown Development Authority (DDA) and Housing Catalyst Design: Shopworks Architecture; Ripley Design; General Contractor: I-Kota Construction Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report. She noted that 143 Remington is now incorporated into the development plan and is to be demolished. She spoke briefly about the home that was previously on that site. She provided a summary of the project. She reviewed the role of the Commission and relevant code section. She discussed the area of adjacency and its characteristics. She asked the Commission to consider key questions related to the development’s width, height/stepbacks, materials, fenestration, and design details. Applicant Presentation Kristin Fritz with Housing Catalyst began with a review of information presented at the last meeting. She stated that they have recently acquired 143 Remington which has enabled significant improvements to the project and reduction of the height. She highlighted the changes made to the design since the last meeting, which include a reduction of one story and increased parking for motor vehicles and bicycles. She walked through the updated floor plans for each level. Landmark Preservation Commission Page 3 August 19, 2020 Ms. Fritz reviewed the zoning requirements applicable to the project and reminded the Commission that affordable housing is a priority for City Council. She defined the income thresholds that will determine who qualifies to rent these units. Ms. Fritz summarized the benefits this project brings to Fort Collins. Chad Holtzinger with Shopworks Architecture continued the presentation with a discussion about the fenestration details that had been added to the design, as well as opening the ground floor to the pedestrian experience. He talked about the efficiency of the parking and the horizontal banding. He stated they still intend to use stucco and the Hunterwasser concept. He talked about the recessed entrance and the texture of the masonry pattern. He displayed various renderings showing how the project will look in context from different perspectives, as well as comparisons of the 6-story versus 5-story design. Mr. Holtzinger explained how the project addresses each of the code requirements. He talked about the articulation in relation to the massing, as well as the stepbacks that create gradual massing transitions. He noted that bulk of the massing is located on the southeast corner. He talked about balancing residential privacy with activation at the street level. He stated that the masonry and window wall meet the requirement for high-quality materials and reference the predominant materials of the historic resources. He talked about the use of windows that reference the proportions and cadence of the downtown street scale. Mr. Holtzinger talked about the vertical and horizontal lines, pointing out that the coursing relates to the brewery and other buildings to the north and east. The design is also broken up with vertical relief from stairs and corridors to give clean breaks to the massing and avoid clutter. Public Input None Commission Questions Mr. Bello said the project had improved. He asked whether the 66 parking spots would be designated to specific units. Ms. Fritz said the parking spots would not be assigned. Mr. Bello expressed concern about not having enough parking for all 79 units, and Ms. Fritz explained they have met the parking requirements. Mr. Bello asked if there was a possibility of ownership and Ms. Fritz explained their strategy to keep these as rental housing. Ms. Michell asked whether subsidized parking in the parking garage was possible. Ms. Fritz said the DDA can help pursue off-site parking in surface lots or garages if needed, but they do not anticipate a problem. Mr. Bello said overall they did a good job and it seems very compatible with the surrounding historic buildings. Ms. Nelson asked about discrepancies between the renderings in the packet and those in the applicant presentation. Mr. Holtzinger responded that changes had been made since the packet was published. He said the bigger fenestration on the ground floor is correct and added they have also been experimenting with the Hunterwasser elements. Ms. Fritz said they increased the transparency of the railing at the ground level apartments after the packet was published. Ms. Nelson asked about the screening above the entrance with the diagonal brick component. Mr. Holtzinger explained that the parapet wall on the garage is much taller, so the visual screening is not dissimilar to what is achieved with the planters, and they liked the austerity of the masonry. Commission Discussion Standard 1 - Width/Massing: Mr. Knierim said the articulation of the banding on the west elevation meets the standard very well. Mr. Murray said he was impressed with the changes on Remington that tie into Equinox. He also said the massing is minimized by the banding and storefronts. Ms. Nelsen said the acquisition of 143 Remington was fortuitous and helped with the massing which picks up the rhythm of downtown and does not appear out of scale or out of proportion. Landmark Preservation Commission Page 4 August 19, 2020 Chair Dunn said the apartments on Remington, the void spaces, and the changes to the windows on south side contribute to a sense of rhythm of the street and matching with nearby historic buildings. She added that lining up the garage and apartment openings helps build the concept of modularity. Standard 2 - Height/Stepbacks: Ms. Nelsen stated the stepbacks do not feel forced and feel like a natural extension of the overall massing. She added that the screening of the mechanical elements works well. Mr. Murray said the stepbacks work well to make it feel like a smaller building and stated that it meets the requirements for buildings over three stories. He said the mechanical elements are well-screened. Mr. Bello said from a pedestrian point of view the mechanical elements would not be visible. Ms. Nelsen thanked the Applicant for responding to the issues the Commission brought forward at the last meeting. Chair Dunn added that it was helpful to be able to refer to the responses in the minutes. Standard 3 - Durable Materials: Members had no comments on this topic. Standard 4 - Predominant Materials: Members agreed that brick & glass were fine. Chair Dunn said the texture in the brick lends a modern feel to a historic material, resulting in a good blend of old and new in the same elevation. Standard 5 - Fenestration: Ms. Nelson said it has a nice feel at the pedestrian level and the ratio of wall to window is good. Mr. Murray appreciated the window detailing but said the recessed storefronts did not fit with the historic buildings. Chair Dunn said she was comfortable with the modern look of the storefronts, adding that the solids to voids are good and it feels more inviting. Mr. Bello inquired about the name of the building. Ms. Fritz said naming a project starting with the number is challenging for a legal database, so they chose to put the street first. Chair Dunn said the addition of the textured brick was a good improvement to the upper windows. Mr. Murray said the new plans compliment the historic buildings in the area. Ms. Wallace said the decorative brick framing of the windows is an appropriate nod to historic- influenced fenestration patterns. Standard 6 - Design Details: Mr. Bello said the garage elements appear to be in line with the building to the north. Ms. Nelsen said the horizontality was done well. She asked about the vertical references at the edges of the wall planes between materials. Mr. Holtzinger said the stucco paneling allowed for transitions between brick and metal. He said most of the breaks represent the stairwell. Ms. Nelsen expressed a small concern that the brick appears stuck to the side and that transition cheapens the high-quality material. Overall, she said the project is successful. Chair Dunn asked if she would like to see the brick continue further into the alley. Mr. Holtzinger said they tried to avoid cheap materials appearing on the primary elevation. Chair Dunn liked the horizontal stucco that separates and adds modularity in alley and appreciated the attention to the alley side presentation. Commission Deliberation Mr. Bello moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to the Decision Maker approval of Oak 140, finding it complies with the standards contained in Land Use Code section 3.4.7, Table 1 that create design compatibility between existing historic resources and infill projects. Ms. Nelsen seconded. The motion passed 7-0. Chair Dunn asked staff to pass along to the Planning & Zoning Board that they met and exceeded the requirements, particularly in terms of materiality. Landmark Preservation Commission Page 5 August 19, 2020 [**Secretary’s Note: The Commission took a short break at this time. Upon reconvening, a roll call was conducted confirming all members were present.] 4. 608 E DRAKE (ANTIOCH CHURCH) – CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DESCRIPTION: Proposed exterior alterations to 608 E Drake, including redesign of entrance and additional square footage on the south elevation and wrapping the east wing as alterations to some of the building’s historic features and materials. APPLICANT: Andy Goldman, VFLA; AK Ford, Antioch Church Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report. She explained this is a minor amendment which, if historic resources are affected, requires the Commission to provide a recommendation to the decision maker, in this case CDNS Staff. She provided some history about the site. She stated that the property had been found to be eligible for designation as a Fort Collins Landmark under criterion 3(C) due to its Neo-Mansard architecture, finding that the church retains very good architectural integrity in all seven aspects with no major alterations since its construction. The property was also determined to be eligible for the State and National Register of Historic Places under Criterion A, C and G. Ms. Bzdek used photos to point out key features of the architecture such as the deep portico over the main entrance, the windows, the blonde brick, the brick chimney, the wood shingling, the modern steeple and cross, the classroom building and the brick barbeque structure. She highlighted the proposed material changes which include replacing the wood shingles with a fiber cement shingle, painting the brick and existing wood window frames, and replacing the window framing with painted fiber cement siding. Ms. Bzdek reviewed the materials proposed for the new additions, including metal panels, painted brick veneer, wood-tone lap siding, painted steel and metal storefront doors and windows. Ms. Bzdek asked the Commission to consider several key questions as to whether the additions, proposed shingles and steeple design meet the standards of LUC 3.4.7. Applicant Presentation AK Ford from Antioch Church explained how the church acquired the property and their desire to expand to accommodate their growing congregation. Andy Goldman with VFLA gave a presentation discussing details about the plans. He stated the original shingles were dried out, cracking and infested with insects. He explained that the mechanical system on the eastern addition is not big enough to support an expansion of the classrooms and lobby, and due to the configuration of the system, the roof would need to be raised to accommodate additional HVAC units. He said they like the mass and horizontality of the building and the change in texture. They want to reflect what is there without mimicking it. He explained they would like to make minimal changes on the western edge of the building to make the materials more durable and maintainable and may also want to change the material on the upper mass to stucco. He said they would like to bring more attention to the front entry and alter the steeple design. On the east side, they are proposing deep deck metal material. He talked about using lines that mimic what is there. He talked about painting the brick and the shingles to create a more monochromatic effect, adding that the shingles had been stained at some point. He talked about the fluidity of color and design over time. Mr. Goldman said the painted brick they are proposing would freshen the appearance but would be unobtrusive and relatively easy to remove later. He said the two-tone finish of the Allura shingles accentuates the wood-grain effect. He said the horizontal shadow lines of the deep deck metal material is consistent with the shingles and bricks. Landmark Preservation Commission Page 6 August 19, 2020 He would like the Commission’s feedback about how best to expand while being sensitive to the historic nature of the building, as well as feedback on the Allure shingles and the steeple modification. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion Chair Dunn commented that it is a fabulous building and great and rare example of the Neo-Mansard style in Fort Collins. She said she was only aware of one other example at St. Luke’s on Stover and Stuart. Ms. Michell asked about the thought behind changing the steeple. The Applicant responded that they wanted to update the look and accent it with a lighting feature so it is more visible. Ms. Wallace commented on how interesting and rare the building is. She said the roof design, steeple and cedar shingles are character-defining features, and that removal or modification of these features seems inconsistent with the code. Mr. Knierim likes the continuation of the horizontal lines. He expressed concern about the loss of the character-defining steeple. He also questioned changing the cedar shingles. Ms. Nelsen said it is a striking building and echoed the previous comments. She wondered if there are other ways to meet the expansion needs without so dramatically affecting the character of building. For example, she asked whether the lighting of the steeple could be achieved without modifying steeple itself. She also suggested placing the addition on the rear or side. She also wondered whether there are ways to break up or delineate the form more effectively. Mr. Goldman agreed that they want to focus on preserving the street faces and asked to what degree the addition would need to reflect the original if it were placed in the rear. He asked whether it would it need to be hyphenated or if it could butt up against the original. Ms. Nelsen said a hyphen does not seem feasible in this program, but a solid addition could be done in such a way that differentiates the new from the old. Chair Dunn suggested moving the classrooms to the back or rearranging the interior spaces to accommodate the needs. Mr. Goldman responded that they also need to consider the accessibility issues in the front, while trying to maintain the sanctuary location. Mr. Murray suggested the painting the brick would be a permanent change. He asked if the Allura shingles match the pattern of the shake shingles. Mr. Goldman discussed the proposed replacement material and said it reduces the maintenance of staining the shingles. Mr. Murray asked if the owner was aware that painted brick must be maintained. The Applicant replied in the affirmative. Mr. Murray expressed concerns about losing the original horizontal lines in favor of a compartmentalized look. He also said the front entry obscures the original structure and agreed with Ms. Nelson’s recommendation to move the addition to the rear. Mr. Murray said he was not as concerned about the modifications to the cross, although it limits northern visibility. Chair Dunn inquired about the life expectancy of the Allura material. Mr. Goldman said the fiber cement would probably last 40-50 years if maintained, adding that it does not require paint or seal, but may occasionally need repair. Chair Dunn asked if the current roof shows signs of hail damage and asked how Allura would compare. Mr. Ford said the shingles have exceeded their life expectancy and are cracking and infested with insects, but he could not speak to how much of their condition is related to hail. Chair Dunn asked how the Allura would weather differently. Mr. Goldman said the material is not brittle and that damage from hail would likely be similar to that of a wood shingle. Ms. Nelsen asked if the shingle product is applied in strips. Mr. Goldman responded in the affirmative. Mr. Murray said he was agreeable to an alternative to wood shingle due to code and fire hazards, and said he liked the idea of keeping that look all the way around the building, if possible. Landmark Preservation Commission Page 7 August 19, 2020 Ms. Nelson asked if the existing shingles have width variation like the Allura. Mr. Ford said there is a slight variation that is not very noticeable. Ms. Nelsen said the proposed material seems to have a similar look and offers more fire resistance, although the variation sems inappropriate. Chair Dunn said a replacement material more similar to the wood would be helpful. Ms. Wallace expressed concern that the Allura would not weather in the same way the cedar would. She asked how the Allura is affixed and whether it is removable. Mr. Goldman said it was a wood stud wall with weather barrier and a finish is applied to prevent water intrusion. He said it does not change the wall structure or weather barrier. He also commented that patina is part of its charm but pointed out that the existing materials are not aging in the same way throughout, depending on location and exposure. Mr. Murray commented that the samples are shingles, but the originals are shakes that have more depth and visual lines. While he understands the maintenance concern, the originals have lasted 50 years while the Allura only lasts 40. He suggested a replacement like cement fiber shingles that have more depth, would look more like the original; and would age and color similarly. Mr. Goldman pointed out that while the original shakes have lasted 50 years, they are not in good condition. He asked for clarification as to the objection to the proposed roof material. Mr. Murray said the depth of the shadow lines is more important to him than the color. Ms. Nelsen said she was not totally comfortable with the Allura but is more concerned with painting the brick as it feels less reversable. She suggested more research into product options. Chair Dunn said the original material captures a connection with nature and authenticity of materials. She said the cedar shingles are character-defining and if a different product is to be used, she would like to see a faux material that comes closer to matching the original. She also agreed that painting the brick is less reversable. Ms. Nelson said the steeple defines the property in many ways and suggested it could be lit without altering it. Chair Dunn talked about the importance of steeples in mid-century churches and liked the way the cross stands out but expressed concern that the proposed alteration hides it from view. Ms. Wallace talked about significance of the cross in that location as one of the only vertical elements in the neighborhood. Chair Dunn would like to see the steeple as is, with another way to highlight it at night that does not change the historic profile or materials. Mr. Murray stated that changing the shingles on the cross does not comply with Standard 4 of the SOI Standards. Mr. Ford expressed concern about the about structural integrity of the cross and wondered about its wind rating. Chair Dunn said it could be repaired, shored up, and interior structural support could be added. Chair Dunn noted that since this property is not a City, State or National landmark, it is not eligible for tax credits or other financial incentives. She mentioned that in Colorado, non-profits can sell tax credits to commercial enterprises through an exchange. She also mentioned an organization that helps churches maintain their buildings. Ms. Bzdek said the National Fund for Sacred Places offers a grant program opportunity that would be worth exploring. Mr. Goldman asked whether a future sanctuary expansion to the north and east would meet the Secretary of Interior Standards. Chair Dunn said the northwest corner is where they should be growing, as it is away from both frontages and there is space for an even bigger addition. She said there would need to be some delineation between the old and the new, perhaps with a hyphen. Ms. Nelsen agreed and added that the northeast corner could also be expanded at a lower volume while keeping the original distinct. Chair Dunn concurred. Chair Dunn suggested the Applicant consider landmarking and recommended getting Staff’s feedback along the way as their ideas evolve. • OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Bertolini provided information about recent and upcoming events related to “Living Her Legacy”. Landmark Preservation Commission Page 8 August 19, 2020 •ADJOURNMENT Chair Dunn adjourned the meeting at 9:11 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by Gretchen Schiager. Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on . Meg Dunn, Chair