Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutREMINGTON ROW (ANNEX) - PDP - PDP110017 - REPORTS - CORRESPONDENCE-HEARINGPrior to the September 26, 2012 Work Session, on September 12, 2012, Mr. Hogestad met with City Planner Courtney Levingston, LPC Member Bud Frick, and Historic Preservation staff to discuss preliminary project designs and garner feedback for a later presentation to the full Landmark Preservation Commission. Staff and Commission member Frick were comfortable with the direction the project is heading and provided the following feedback: • Elevation drawings should show the context of the street — specifically the existing buildings to the north and south of the project area. • Existing footprints of the buildings at 705 and 715 Remington Street should be shown for reference to the proposed buildings. • Explore options that could break up the verticality of the front -facing three-story portions of the proposed buildings at 705 and 715 Remington Street. COMMISSION ACTION: As this is a Complimentary Review of properties that are not Fort Collins Landmarks, the Commission will not take formal action. Individual members may provide feedback to the applicant and these comments will be considered by staff in its review of the project. ��Planning, ty of Development & Transportation Fort Collins Community Development 8 Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins. CO 80522.0580 /10000� 970.416.2740 970.224.6134-fax fcgov.com LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION February 13, 2013 STAFF REPORT PROJECT: 705, 711, and 721 Remington Street, Remington Row (formerly Remington Annex) CONTACT: Karen McWilliams, Preservation Planner APPLICANTS: Robin and Christian Bachelet, Owners; Justin Larson and Jeff Hanson, Vaught -Frye - Larson Architects REQUEST: Complimentary Review of Changes to this Project SUMMARY: This project came before the Commission most recently at its September 26, 2012 Work Session. At that time, the Commission presented the design team with several comments. The team is now providing revised drawings, and asking for another Complimentary review prior to their submittal of plans for the Planning and Zoning Board Hearing in March. Architect Per Hogestad has been working with the owners of the properties to design a multi- family housing project that both meets the needs of the owners and which complies with the City's Land Use Code and the Historic Preservation criteria, including the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. BACKGROUND: At its September 26 h Work Session, the LPC heard a presentation from Mr. Hogestad and requested the following for moving forward with the project: • Once Mr. Hogestad releases the project to VFLA for further development, he will retain oversight of the VFLA preliminaries, schematic design, design development, and construction drawings. • The Commission would like to look at the project once VFLA takes over. • Some Commission members had concerns with the proposed buildings maintaining less of a setback than the house at 711 Remington. Mr. Hogestad assured the commission that the buildings including the porches would meet the Land Use Code standards for front yard setback and the two new buildings will be aligned with the historic setback of 715 Remington. By preserving this setback for both buildings, all proposed parking will be retained. • Additionally, the Commission provided very positive feedback on the proposed project. It was suggested that it could serve as a "model project" for future projects that combine historic preservation with redevelopment. Specifically, the Commission was very pleased with the preservation of the house at 711 Remington, and it was clear that the full Commission was pleased with the sensitive design of the flanking buildings at 705 and 715. a Fort Collins Landmark. Proposed changes to Fort Collins Landmarks are reviewed by LPC under Chapter 14, Article III of the City Code. The proposed 4100 sqft office building is 1 '/z stories with approximately 2650 sqft on the main level and 1450 on the upper level. Mr. Weinberg stated that staff recommends approving the application for a new office building at the Nix Farm site, finding that it meets the provisions of Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article III, Section 14-48(b), "Approval of Proposed Work." PROJECT PRESENTATION: Mr. Shuff states that the Natural Areas staff had outgrown their current location and are in need of a new building. The design of which is going to fit in well with the existing farm buildings. He showed several artist renderings and gave a detailed description of the proposed new building, its location on the property and the plan to maintain the feel of the farm "cluster" development. The plan is to downplay the new building and let the existing main house be the "jewel" of the property. The new buildings will be stucco and lap siding, a combination of what the buildings on site consist of right now. The new building will have a bit of a contemporary look on the south side due to the modern windows — however, it will be more traditional in scale. PUBLIC COMMENTS: no comments COMMISSION DELIBERATION: Mr. Sladek mentioned the similar roof slopes on the new building compared to the existing. The brackets proposed on the new building also a nice touch. Mr. Frick said he thought the project looks good. Mr. Sladek liked the design, only thing he would ask, is the use of good landscaping would help to soften the view from the drive and from the existing house. Landscaping will be an important piece. Ms. Tvede moved that the LPC approve the application for a new office building at the nix farm site finding that it meets the provisions of municipal code chapter 14, article 3, section 14-48 (b), "Approval of Proposed Work" Mr. Frick second Vote 6-0 Meeting adjourned 8:44pm 11 very interested in presenting the history of the buildings to the public and creating an "experience" that the City of Fort Collins residents can enjoy. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mr. Hogestead stated that he felt the design was very thoughtful; however, the divisions in the glass for the new buildings might not be true to the time frame of the original buildings. He wants the difference to be made distinguishable between the modern changes and the preserved historical parts. He thought the fish scale gable end should be investigated — it could be a feature piece if it is historical. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Ms. Zink asked about the new store front materials projected for use. Mr. Shuff said they are considering using white on white for the store front because it will blend a little more and be less intrusive. Which the Commission felt was a great option. Mr. Hogestead also thought forward glazing on the store front would be best. Mr. Frick wanted clarification on insulation proposals for the buildings. Mr. Shuff explained which buildings would be insulated and how. In the Loafing Shed and the Bam, they will be using rigid insulation, metal roofing and galvanized metal bands around the roofline. The other buildings currently have attic space where blown in or batting type insulation can be used. Mr. Frick made suggestions on the Saddle Shop door and ideas on how to showcase the sliding door the developer wanted to preserve. He also wanted to know what type of window materials were projected for use. Mr. Shuff stated aluminum store front. Mr. Frick mentioned that he thinks the aluminum would be enough of a change from the original wood that the divided light would be okay if it were to be set inside the window panes. Ms. Zink said that the "case by case" approach that Mr. Shuff presents might not be the best thing to do. She suggests finding something that works for everything and makes a statement such as "this is the work that was done in 2013." Commission members agreed with her. Mr. Shuff explained that the Loafing Shed will need x bracing or lines of steel to brace the building which will add to the tenant space. Some partitions are possible — 6-8" wide wall portions, which will create demising walls. Mr. Sladek said that -the Loafing Shed is one of the most remarkable uses of a building he has seen so far. Mr. Frick commented that the design has been true to the original concept. Ms. Wallace asked the presenters if they planned on using interpretive text about the farm or the buildings for the public. Mr. Shuff mentioned that Wayne Sonberg had been hired to do research on the project, stating the importance of telling the stories of the farm and the families who owned the farm. Mr. Campana, the owner / developer, mentioned they do believe the information will be important for the project and they will be doing some type of pictures, plaques, signage, etc. They may even incorporate historical items that have been found at the sight. Mr. Sladek,said that many members of the public will be visiting this location and any chance to get historical information out to the public would be great. No other comments, great project. No vote needed, just opportunity for comments. CONCEPTUAL / FINAL DESIGN REVIEW: CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW BUILDING FOR THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATURAL AREAS COMPLEX AT NIX FARM 1745 HOFFMAN MILL ROAD. MARK SEARS, NATURAL AREAS PROGRAM MANAGER; IAN SNUFF, ALLER-LINGLE-MASSEY ARCHITECTS STAFF REPORTS: Mr. Weinberg gave background of Nix Farm which was acquired by the City of Fort Collins in 1996. The City Council passed Ordinance No. 94, 2001 designating the entire property as Mr. Sladek, LPC Chair, moved that the recommendation be made to council that the LPC be considered for variance review as either one of the Options A or Option B is adopted. process. Ms. Zink seconded the motion (clarify LPC make a recommendation or would it be binding action) Amend motion that LPC be allowed to make a recommendation through the variance review Ms. Zink second Vote 8-0 Ms. Carlson left the meeting 7:53pm DISCUSSION: HISTORIC PRESERVATION CODE CHANGES PHASE II — KAREN MCWILLIAMS, HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLANNER STAFF REPORT: Ms. McWilliams updated the Commission by stating that the discussion will be delayed due to the Eastside Westside Neighborhoods Study at this time. She stated that this would give her and staff further time to work on the code changes and she would be presenting at a later date, possibly early summer. COMPLIMENTARY REVIEW OF THE REHABILITATION OF JESSUP FARM BUILDINGS: MICHAEL CAMPANA, BELLISIMO INCORPORATED; IAN SNUFF, ALLER LINGLE MASSEY ARCHITECTS Mr. Lingle left the meeting, stating he had a conflict of interest 7:56pm STAFF REPORT: Mr. Weinberg stated that this is a complimentary review for the rehabilitation of the Jessup Farm Buildings. Buildings comprising the Jessup Farm complex have been determined individually eligible for designation as Fort Collins Landmarks and collectively as a Landmark District. The architect and developer have attached drawings with the intent to provide the Commission with a project update and are still in progress toward final submittal. At this time, they are looking for input from the Commission. PRESENTATION BY ARCHITECT: Mr. Shuff presented on behalf of Aller-Lingle-Massey Architects and the owner / developer. The project was initially presented to the Commission last summer, however, the team wanted to present the Commission with updated information at this time. The project is an artisan type feel with some small scale retail and restaurants. The project will be focusing on maintaining existing glass as much as possible, however they will be bringing the buildings up to code. He gave detailed information on each building including the Barn, the Loafing Shed, the Mechanics Shop, the Garage and the Saddle Shop and the plans to update each. The architect and the owner / developer are Discussion of how many lots will actually be impacted by the FAR standard changes. Mr. Wray presented numbers to the Commission with information about the lot sizes in the areas and mentioned that the intent was to target the largest construction projects, stating that the majority of projects are nowhere near the FAR standards now. That is the same for the design standards, hopes of providing greater flexibility for expansion of the projects in the lower ranges. Mr. Ernest moved that LPC recommend to City Council regarding an ordinance for proposed Land Use Code changes related to implementation ofEastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study to include Option B Ms. Carson second DISCUSSION AND AMMENDMENTS: Mr. Lingle suggests moving to amend the motion by adding a requirement that the solar access standard be coupled with additional design standards that would address the roofline compatibility, or design issues related to application of that ordinance language. Mr. Frick said that would have to be part of the code standards, not the voluntary handbooks. Mr. Sladek moved to amend the motion and add a request to council that the LPC be included in a variance request. Mr. Lingle moved to amend the motion concerning the new solar access standard by requiring and additional design standard or standards to be developed by staff that would address design issues related to rooflines, roof pitch and symmetry and to alleviate unintended consequences of the language. Ms. Carson still second Mr. Sladek moved to amend the motion by adding a request or recommendation to Council that the LPC be included in variance review as that comes up. Mr. Ernest believes that Mr. Sladeks' amendment to the motion should be a separate issue all together. Vote made on original motion with Mr. Lingle's amendment regarding solar access and design standards Passed 8-0 Confusion on the motion took place prior to vote, LPC restated the motion and took another vote Mr. Sladek, LPC Chair, moved that LPC make a recommendation to City Council regarding an ordinance for the proposed Land Use Code changes related to implementation of the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study and that the LPC recommends the adoption of Option B with the amendment that the new solar access standards and additional design standards be developed by staff that would address design issues related to rooflines, roof pitch and symmetry and to alleviate unintended consequences of the language. Ms. Zink seconded the motion Vote 8-0 The Commission discussed solar access, changes in setbacks, allowable height and what the potential design impacts could be. The concern was that the change could have unintended bad design consequences. Mr. Lingle asked if there would be corresponding design standards that would alleviate potential symmetry issues. The illustration was something of a concern, of course it was over simplified, however, the concern is the lack of architecture options creating all "saltbox" type roof lines. Notification area discussion with explanation of what the boundary changes from 150 feet to 500 feet will mean for future projects. Mr. Sladek questioned why the changes that were recommended and approved by Council in 2011 and then repealed, regarding LPC review, were not presented in the current round of changes. Ms. Albertson -Clark explained that the topic was not proposed because it was something the consultants suggested should not be included based on the fact that the proposal should be completely different from anything that had already been presented, especially because of the repeal. Recollection took place as to what the history of the original discussion of the LPC recommendation for a variance. It was unknown the exact topic or if there was a debate of sorts over the issue. Ms. McWilliams remembered that the item was brought before council as part of a package. At that time, council passed two separate ordinances creating a 9 member LPC with the idea that they would allow the LPC to do reviews of variances and to make recommendations. At that time, due to challenge by the citizens, the ordinances were revoked. One ordinance was left to stand at that time, so that LPC could do design review subcommittees, but the variance portion was revoked. Ms. McWilliams said that at that time, her take was that council was supportive of LPC doing variance reviews and making recommendations. The members expressed concern at LPC not being included in variance reviews. Discussion continued, focusing on the lack of mention of multi -family development, duplexes and 3 story buildings and how they could be impacted by the revisions. Mr. Wray explained that the existing standards in Article 3 were sufficient to address multi -family projects. Mr. Sladek stated it was a concern for him as a LPC member. His concern as well as Ms. Lingle's, was that the revisions would not impact multi -family or multi -story projects. Ms. Albertson -Clark restated that the multi -family design standards are stringent and also that there are newer setback requirements between single and multi- family buffer areas. Commission members discussed the case studies presented and felt they were impactful as far as showing the potential effects now and in the future. Mr. Sladek commented that he felt good about where this was headed in terms of changes to buildings. He was more comfortable with Option A with revision of existing FAR standards. He felt it would add more to the impact it would have upon infill in the districts. Ms. Tvede commented that Option A would work without LPC review, but Option B, due to the design element should be presented to LPC. Mr. Lingle is a supporter of good solid design standards, and doesn't think that the FAR is necessary. He would rather have thoughtful, comprehensive design standards that could positively influence the way people look at their properties and how they design things rather than having such a heavy handed FAR piece to it. Mr. Sladek posed a question to Mr. Lingle wanting to know if he thought that Option A including FAR burdened the homeowner. His response was that he wasn't sure about it being a burden, but more of a layering of restrictions, including tampering of design creativity. Do we think that the problem is large enough, that City Council has the ability to "lop" off 22% of someone's ability to build on their property, compounded with all the other reductions? If it is, than maybe that is the recommendation that we should make. Design assistance would be through HPC and would be utilized more; however, the parameters would not change. The outreach effort would be more intensive to get the word out. OWNER COMMENTS: In response to Mr. Sladek's question regarding possible project start date, Ms. Bachelet stated that she was hoping for end of April 2013, depending upon the Planning and Zoning Board meeting results. EASTSIDE AND WESTSIDE NEIGHBORHOODS CHARACTER STUDY DISCUSSION: SHERRY ALBERTSON-CLARK, INTERIM PLANNING MANAGER, AND PETE WRAY, SENIOR CITY PLANNER TOPIC INTRODUCTION: Mr. Wray requested that LPC listen to the strategy options and make a recommendation to City Council regarding an ordinance for proposed Land Use Code changes related to implementation of the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study. On November 27, 2012, the strategy report was presented to City Council at their work session. At that time, Council directed staff to proceed with implementation of those strategy options including revising house size limits and new solar access standards. Since the work session, Mr. Wray and Ms. Albertson -Clark have been working hard to develop proposed code amendments to implement strategies. Draft materials have been presented at a series of public meetings; they have had working group meetings within the neighborhoods and hosted a public open house at the end of January. Now they are in the sequence of seeking boards and commissions recommendations to Council. PZ board had their first meeting on Feb 70', and Mr. Wray and Ms. Albertson -Clark attended a 3rd City Council work session last night (Feb 12°i, 2013). The staff recommendations from the strategy report included 5 strategy options. The first was to promote the existing design assistance program. Second was to expand notification for ZBA variance requests, the notification area. Third was to create voluntary design handbooks for guidelines. The fourth was looking at 2 measurement method adjustments; one for floor area ratio way of calculating large volume spaces within the building and the other was a measurement method adjustment for clarifying the building sidewall height and where it is measured from. The fifth recommendation was to address building mass, scale and solar impacts indirectly through a series of proposed new design standards. Council provided direction on these 5 strategy options and they also wanted to have a potential change to the FAR standard included. (slides shown at this point in the discussion mapping out the area boundaries in the 2 zoning districts (NCM and NCL) being discussed and affected by the code amendments) Recently, staff had prepared 2 options for consideration to be included in the ordinance. Option A reflects a package of revised new standards including the revision to the existing FAR formula. Option B is the same package however it does not include a FAR formula change. Both include the measurement method within the FAR standards and clarification and formatting of the existing code language. (explanation in detail of all the strategy options and standards with slide presentations, tables, charts, and diagrams of before and after code amendments) PUBLIC INPUT: None COMMISSION COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION: Mr. Sladek clarified that the Commission is being asked to make a recommendation to City Council regarding the ordinance that is being proposed, and to make a recommendation as to whether Option A or Option B is preferred or a variation of either ordinance. landmark requests. Ms. McWilliams restated the eligibility requirements for the designation, stating the case is significant for standard (2) and that in addition to the significance it needs to have a preponderance of integrity, not all of the 7 aspects. In terms of long term or short term ramifications for other designated properties or potential properties, she did not see one. She stated that each one will have to come before the Commission in their own right and either have the necessary qualifications to meet the standards and be eligible or not. She did not think what the Commission decided tonight would have an impact on the future. Mr. Ernest stated that after further reading of the history of the Chandler family, he was in agreement that the Chandler family had a historic significance to the City of Fort Collins. Motion passed (7-1). COMPLIMENTARY REVIEW OF REMINGTON ROW: 705, 711, AND 721 REMINGTON STREET — ROBIN AND CHRISTIAN BACHELET, OWNERS; JUSTON LARSON AND JEFF HANSON, VAUGHT-FRYE-LARSON ARCHITECTS AND PER HOGESTEAD STAFF REPORT: Ms. McWilliams explained the property is not a designated Fort Collins Landmark and that the review is complementary based on previous requests made by the Commission at the September 26, 2012 work session, of updated materials by the design team. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Jeff Larson presented modified designs including setback changes that will both maximize meeting parking requirements and match setbacks of existing buildings. (several slides included in presentation) Mr. Larson felt like the team met all the conditions that the Commission requested in the September work session. Mr. Hogestead commented that he had indeed been involved with the design team and felt comfortable that the team had been true to the design concept that he presented to the Commission. Ms. Bachelet added that she appreciated the Commission hearing the presentation and stated that she was looking for enough support that she and the team could move to the next stage. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Mr. Frick commented that he felt 110% better and he would support the project at this point. The only other comment would be the setback at 715 Remington Street being 3 feet over the line. Ms. Carson mentioned how impressed she was and appreciative of the dedication and hard work that was put into the design. Mr. Sladek agreed with the previous comments and stated that he wished the Commission could have gotten to this place a lot sooner. He stated that this project was a possible model project for the future. Ms. Carson stated that with the pressure in old town with development coming in, this project captured exactly what the LPC is trying to achieve in neighborhoods. Mr. Lingle agreed with the comments as did Ms. Wallace. Ms. Zink felt the ensemble was interesting and will add to the exiting streetscape. Mr. Sladek mentioned that the existing buildings at the Remington addresses are not only ugly, but they don't represent Fort Collins at all. He cannot wait for them to be removed and these new buildings go up in their place. property based on that. Not based on architecture, and let the architecture resolve itself that way. Mr. Sladek commented that it was a great question, and discussion regarding removing standard (3) and basing the entire landmark designation eligibility on standard (2) took place. Integrity of the building was the next topic of discussion. Ms. Zink commented that she believed the building had a great deal of integrity. She stated it still had the original exterior brick, the original roof minus the dormer, the original windows, chimney, exposed rafter end and the front door. The original foundation of the porch is there and the stone base of the porch. Ms. Lieber commented that the stone wall around the porch is original. Mr. Sladek asked the members to help him remember all the aspects of integrity. The response was setting, location, materials, workmanship, association, feeling and design. He stated that location is the same, design obviously some changed but mostly the same, intact setting, materials of which most are there, workmanship much of it is intact — although not all. Ms. Zink commented that there won't be too many designated properties that are one hundred percent in integrity. Mr. Sladek posed the question to the group whether removing standard (3) for architecture would make any difference. Ms. Carson agreed that the suggestion was an excellent idea. Ms. Tvede mentioned that it would remove any confusion about standard (3) and that standard (2) could stand by itself. Mr. Sladek agreed. Ms. Tvede continued by saying that removing the superficial things such as the shutters and the pediment would basically return the house back to a foursquare. Mr. Sladek commented that he felt the house was still a foursquare house just a matter of the detailing. Ms. Carson added that to find a home in Fort Collins that is pure and hasn't been altered in 80-100 years is rare. Mr. Sladek addressed Ms. McWilliams stating that many of the Commission members were leaning towards approval on the request; however he questioned whether the board had the latitude to approve under the conditions presented. Ms. McWilliams stated that yes the board could find it eligible under standard (2), and then finding that it meets a predominance of integrity, which was discussed and determined that it is only missing one of the seven criteria, it certainly could be designated. Mr. Sladek reminded everyone that a property only needs to meet one of the criteria and the majority of the integrity standards; it doesn't have to be perfect. Mr. Lingle understands that however, he hesitated in folding things into one motion stating both the landmark designation and the proposed alteration should be separate actions. Mr. Sladek said that we could just simply approve the nomination and let it be. The owner is always welcome to come back in and present again once the building has been changed and in fact that would probably be a good idea once the work is done. At that point, the design will have changed. Ms. McWilliams pointed out that a similar recent example would be a recent designation of 113 South Whitcomb Street as being contributing to the district under standards (1) and (2) but not (3) because the architecture had changed. The commission found that conditions of standard (3). Mr. Sladek asked for a motion. Mr. Lingle moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend approval of the proposed landmark designation of the Oliver and Leota Chandler property at 710 Mathews Street, Fort Collins, under standard (2) for its association of prominent Fort Collins individual Oliver Chandler. The motion was seconded by Ms. Tvede. Mr. Sladek stated that by proceeding with the positive vote, the Commission would then be reviewing plans for modifications to the building in the future. Mr. Lingle fully supportive of Ms. Lieber, however cannot get past the integrity questions. He felt that the home does not have the majority of the integrity issues needed for his positive vote. Mr. Sladek posed a question to the staff asking about future ramifications that the Commission might not have thought of thinking towards the future and other which time Mr. Weinberg stated he did have a copy of the plans from Ms. Lieber, if the Commission members wanted to look at them. PUBLIC COMMENTS: No public comments. COMMISSIONER'S DELIBERATION: Mr. Sladek stated that the request to the Commission is for approval of landmark designation for the property, however understanding that the property doesn't look like it did back in 1948, or earlier. It has been changed from a foursquare with craftsman detailing to a foursquare with colonial with revival detailing. Mr. Lingle presented a question for Mr. Weinberg, wondering if he had been able to determine the period when the changes were made and whether or not, in his opinion, the house has gained significance as it is now versus 1948 and prior? Mr. Weinberg responded that in his opinion those changes had not caused the house to gain significance in its current state. Records were found, indicating that the house was used as a fraternity, and at one point speculated that the colonial revival elements were added during that time frame. However, CSU yearbook photos show that the fraternity occupied the building through the 1950's and early 1960's and there is no evidence of those changes being made. So they were most likely added in the late 1960's if then, or after. Building permits were searched too, but that time frame is sketchy for records of permits. There is a possibility that the changes were made 50 years ago, but could have been made 45 years ago as well. Ms. McWilliams added that the photos in the yearbooks through the early 1960's, shows that the building has not been altered at that point. So the alterations themselves are less than 50 years old. Mr. Sladek agreed, and stated that the nomination was very well written, congratulating the assemblers, Mr. Weinberg and Historic Preservation Intern, John Kochanczyk. Mr. Sladek questioned the Commission as to whether or not they could put through the landmark designation for the property with a condition attached to it; that it could be reviewed again at some point down the road. He asked Ms. McWilliams if that was an option and if the Commission had ever faced that situation before? She stated they had; however, it was prior to the tax incentives. She was unsure whether the tax incentives would be approved if the landmark designation were conditional. Mr. Frick asked if the drawings for the porch had been looked at by anyone, to which Mr. Weinberg answered yes. He stated that staff had done a preliminary review to make sure that all the necessary materials have been submitted and he offered a copy of the plans to the Commission for viewing as well. Mr. Lingle stated that in order to determine that the criteria can be applied for designation; the Commission would first have to find that there is integrity. The building doesn't have integrity until the work is completed. Again, the question for staff is to conditionally designate, however, what if the property is sold or there is a reason that the work isn't done. The Commission could revoke the designation if the work isn't done. Otherwise, we would have to find that the house now has sufficient integrity to landmark it. Ms. Lieber agrees that this is the same problem she has had, only on the other side. Mr. Lingle stated that he believes that she fully intends to follow through with the completion of the project, but if for some reason it wasn't done what would our recourse be or would the Commission have the mechanism to revoke the designation? Mr. Ernest stated that there is a procedural issue being faced in that normally landmark designations are dealing with the municipal codes 14-21 through 14-31 which deals with just landmark designations. In this case, it's also an alteration, which procedure is outlined in 14-46 through 14-48. If we had a motion that would encapsulate both of those sets of procedures, then that might work. Ms. Tvede asked the members if they could landmark the house just based on the historic person who lived there and not the architectural integrity of the house. The evidence that someone of great importance lived there was presented and they. could landmark the 3 Institute to share with the commission. There is another article brought to the commission's attention by Ted Shepherd, Chief City Planner, which came from the American Planning Association Magazine which talks about preserving and protecting and taking another look at the standards for historic preservation. Primarily they address infill projects in historic commercial downtowns. The tone of the article is that rather than doing something new and that contrasts highly with the historic property, that instead we should be looking at the historic property as context and modeling the new construction to be in context with the historic. All of the articles will be passed around the meeting and made available via email before the next work session. PUBLIC INPUT: None DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR DESIGNATION AS A FORT COLLINS LANDMARK, 710 MATHEWS STREET, THE OLIVER AND LEOTA CHANDLER PROPERTY — BARBARA LIEBLER, OWNER STAFF REPORT: Mr. Weinberg gave a brief project description and stated the request is for the Commission to give approval for Landmark Designation of the Olive and Leota Chandler Property, under Standards (2) and (3) for its association with prominent Fort Collins Individual Oliver Chandler, as well as for its excellent representation of American Foursquare architectural form. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Barbara Liebler, owner, said she bought the house in 2003 after having lived a block away since 1972. She had noticed all along that it looked bare, because it was the only house around that no longer had a roof on its front porch. Also, the blue shutters and the pediment (or decorative item above the door) obviously don't fit. She stated that she had been thinking for years of putting a porch roof back on, however, she couldn't afford to just do it. She heard about the zero percent loan for historic rehabilitation and thought if that could help her out then she could afford to do it. If the property is not approved as a historic property then she is not eligible for the zero interest loans. If she doesn't get the loan, then she cannot afford to do the project. Ms. Liebler stated she does have a contractor, Kevin Murray, who has given her an estimate. Kevin has worked with a number of historic properties and was very interesting to talk to. Ms. Liebler and Kevin Murray could see shadows on the front of the building where you could tell that the pillars were 10 '/z" wide, which is what she had estimated from looking at neighbors houses. Ms. Liebler explained that this is where she is at now; she does not have the designation yet but has applied for the loan. She stated that if she gets the loan she will go ahead with the project for both the dormer and the porch roof. She will also take off the blue shutters that clearly don't belong there and the triangular ornament above the door that doesn't fit either. She said she would put it back to the 1948 look, or to imitate the 1948 look. Ms. Liebler also had architectural drawings done for the project. STAFF COMMENTS: None COMMISSIONER'S DELIBERATION: Mr. Sladek thanked Barbara Lieber for her presentation and stated that this presents and interesting situation for the Commission. He asked for feedback from staff, at Attachment 10 dra t LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting February 13, 2013 Council Liaison: Wade Troxell (970-219-8940) Staff Liaison: Laurie Kadrich (970-221-6750) Commission Chairperson: Ron Sladek SUMMARY OF MEETING: Determination of eligibility for designation as a Fort Collins landmark, ,710 Mathews Street — Complimentary review of Remington Row — Discussion of Eastside Westside Neighborhoods Character Study — Discussion of Historic Preservation Code Changes phase 2 - Conceptual Design Review of Nix Farm - Project update Jessup Farm. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: The Commission was called to order by Chair Ron Sladek with a quorum present at 5:40 p.m. at 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Present were Alexandra Wallace, Doug Ernest, W.J. (Bud) Frick, Dave Lingle, Belinda Zink, Ron Sladek, Pat Tvede and Sondra Carson. Also present were Historic Preservation Planners Josh Weinberg and Karen McWilliams, City Planner Courtney Levingston, Interim Planning Manager Sherry Albertson -Clark, Senior City Planner Pete Wray and Amy Simmons, Staff Support. AGENDA REVIEW: The scope of the preservation code discussion changed, however the topic remained on the agenda. STAFF REPORTS: Ms. McWilliams stated that many of the commission members had the opportunity to attend the Saving Places Conference in Denver last week. It was the largest state conference in the country, second only to the National Trust Conference in terms of size and scope. Also, Ms. McWilliams pointed out that the City of Fort Collins received its 80' Stephen Heart Award at the conference. The award was accepted by Council Liaison Wade Troxell. The award was given to the City of Fort Collins, to Carol Tunner, to Deborah Uhl and the property owner Ed Stoner for the restoration and rehabilitation of the Coke -A- Cola sign on the side of the Honstein block on east Mountain Avenue. COMMISSIONER MEMBERS' REPORTS: Mr. Sladek suggested members might want to share any information they obtained from the conference at the next work session. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: no minutes to approve at this time. STAFF REPORTS: Ms. McWilliams wanted to draw attention to an article that Mr. Ernest had emailed out about the Boulder City Council. Boulder is looking at ways to address the large number of 50 plus year old properties that they will soon encounter. Boulder Council Landmarks Board has been discussing historic preservation, and it turns out that the City of Boulder has never had a historic preservation plan. They have been in business for 39 years and they are just now getting a preservation plan organized. Ms. McWilliams had a mailing regarding educational courses being offered by the National Preservation